HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-11/06/2001-RegularNovember 6, 2001
• COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, November 6,
2001, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner
and Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Linda Stanley, 2040 Bennington Circle, presented objections to the I-25 Corridor Plan and asked
Council to reject the Plan when it is presented for Council consideration.
Paulette Haley, elementary schoolteacher, representing her mother Margaret Fisch, 2814 South Taft
Hill Road, stated that her mother's house would be demolished in the Taft Hill improvement plan.
She stated that the City's appraisal for the property was $129,000 and that the appraisal has been
• increased to $150,000 through negotiation. She stated that the property owner has been asked to pay
$2,600 for an appraisal. She stated that their appraisal was for $165,500 and that the City has
stopped negotiations. She stated that they would like the utilities moved approximately 150 feet
from the old house to the new house, the irrigation ditch issues resolved, to keep their address, and
to have attorney's fees paid. She asked for Council's help regarding the issue and asked that her
another be compensated properly for her property.
Ramon Ajero, 3712 Soderburg Drive, expressed concerns regarding whether the proposed deletions
from the I-25 Corridor Plan would result in a substantive change in the City's implementation of the
Plan. He stated that he had concerns that these changes would replace explicit language with "read
between the lines" language that would not provide clarification regarding policy. He raised
questions regarding the impact of the Plan on affordable housing, vehicle miles traveled, and costs.
Mike Doten, Director of Citizen Planners, spoke regarding the I-25 Corridor Plan and expressed
concerns that the Plan does not address affordable housing, that there was limited work done
regarding air quality analysis, that additional infrastructure will be added and that there would be
funding problems, that parallel roads will cause sprawl, and that the Plan may cause economic
decline in the core area.
Bill Miller, Skydive Avenue resident, spoke in opposition to adoption of the I-25 Corridor Plan and
stated that it would be a public subsidy to speculators who have invested in land along the corridor,
that land use planning should be done before transportation infrastructure is planned, that the
0 187
revenue sharing provisions of the Plan would require Fort Collins to pay a portion of infrastructure
costs generated by other communities that ignore the standards encouraged by Fort Collins, that
approval of the Plan will make it difficult for future Councils to deny future funding requests, that
the Plan will place enormous demand upon municipal finances at a time of economic uncertainty,
and that the Plan will encourage growth.
Karen Wagner, County resident and downtown property owner, expressed opposition to the I-25
Corridor Plan and expressed concerns that the proposed deletions from the Plan do not address
citizen concerns about the Plan and do not really change the intent of the Plan. She suggested
changes that would truly address citizen concerns. She expressed concerns regarding the impact of
the economic downturn on the I-25 corridor and asked Council to adopt a vision rather than a road
plan.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Tharp thanked the citizens who spoke during citizen participation
Councilmember Bertschy thanked those who spoke and requested a two -page memo regarding the
concerns expressed by Ms. Haley.
Mayor Martinez asked if the I-25 Corridor Plan addresses affordable housing and if the City is in
violation of federal air quality standards. City Manager Fischbach stated that staff will look at
incorporating affordable housing into the Plan and that the City is not in violation of federal air
quality standards at this time. He stated that modeling work has been done to suggest that the City
will be in violation of air quality standards in the future.
Mayor Martinez asked for information regarding whether not adopting a plan would contribute to
poor air quality. City Manager Fischbach stated that work has been done that shows that this would
be the cases.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the questions and answers that have been prepared for Council by
staff regarding the I-25 Corridor Plan are available to the public. City Manager Fischbach stated that
this information is available to the public.
Councilmember Kastein noted that answers to many of the questions that have been asked regarding
the I-25 Corridor Plan are available on the City's website.
Councilmember Kastein requested more information regarding the issues posed by Ms. Haley.
Aeenda Review
City Manager Fischbach stated that the agenda would stand as published.
188
November 6, 2001
Mayor Martinez noted that there are several Consent Calendar sections on the agenda and that items
pulled from each Consent Calendar would be considered immediately rather than at the end of the
meeting.
Councilmember Hamrick pulled item # 17 First Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2001, Authorizing
the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands for a Natural Area Along Spring
Creek on a Portion of Lot 1 of Shadowbrook P. U. D. from the Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2001, Amending Chanter 7 of the City Code
Relating to Election Campaigns.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2001,
amends Article V of Chapter 7 of the City Code relating to campaign practices in local
elections. The majority of the changes proposed are intended to provide clarification of
existing provisions.
8. Second Readin@ of Ordinance No. 154, 2001, Amending Chapter 20 Article II of the
City Code Regarding Noise.
• As part of an effort to improve noise enforcement, the City Manager initiated review of
the City's noise control ordinance (codified in Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code),
which was originally implemented in 1981. A staff team reviewed the ordinance and
proposed modest amendments to bring it up-to-date. The Council Health and Safety
Committee reviewed the proposed amendments and made some changes. Ordinance No.
154, 2001, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2001.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No 155, 2001 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated
Amounts Between Funds.
Ordinance No. 155, 2001, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October
16, 2001, appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in various City
funds, and authorizes the transfer of appropriated amounts between funds. The City
Charter permits the City Council to provide by ordinance for payment of any expense
from prior year reserves. The Charter also permits the City Council to appropriate
unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee increases or new revenue sources.
0 189
November 6, 2001
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No 156 2001 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment.
Ordinance No. 156, 2001, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October
16, 2001, authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease -purchase financing
agreement with Koch Financial Corporation at 4.533% interest rate. The agreement shall
be for an original term from the execution date of the agreements to the end of the current
fiscal year. The agreement shall provide for renewable one-year terms thereafter, to a
total term of five (5) years, subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease
payments.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No 157 2001 Amending Sections 13-23 and 13-24 of the
City Code Concerning the Enforcement and Conciliation of Human Rights Violations.
The City's Human Rights Code (Chapter 13 of the City Code) previously limited
conciliation efforts by the City Manager. The City Manager has delegated his role under
the Human Rights Code to the City's Human Rights Resource and Education Office.
Conciliation is only authorized after the City Manager makes a finding of probable cause
and any conciliation effort must be completed within 90-days of the filing of the
complaint by a citizen alleging discrimination.
Ordinance No. 157, 2001, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October
16, 2001, allows conciliation to occur at an earlier point in the complaint process (upon
the filing of a complaint instead of upon completion of the investigation and a finding of
probable cause) and will remove the 90-day time limit on reaching a conciliation.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No 158 2001 Amending Sections 23-82 and 23-83 of the
City Code Pertaining to Encroachments.
Ordinance No. 158, 2001, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16,
2001. At the time of First Reading, Councilmember Hamrick asked whether the
previously proposed waiver of an encroachment permit fee for news racks should apply
to all kinds of publications which might be offered on the news racks, regardless of
whether they contain traditional speech, such as the Coloradoan or the Denver Post, or
more commercial speech, such as the Thrifty Nickel. The proposed fee waiver has been
eliminated. Ordinance No. 158, 2001, has been amended between First and Second
Reading to set the fee for news racks and other constitutionally protected speech at the
nominal amount of $10 so as to avoid any prior constraint concerns.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No 160 2001 Approving the Terms of the Sublease by
the City of a Portion of Rivendell School Property for a Community Recycling Drop-off
Facili .
190
November 6, 2001
• The City Manager has executed a sublease agreement by which the City will sublease
from the executive board of Rivendell School a portion of the school's paved surface area
as the location for a community recycling collection facility ("drop-off site"), for an
initial period through the end of the current calendar year with up to 10 one-year
renewals.
This Ordinance which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16, 2001,
allows the City to submit the Agreement to the County in order to remove a one -acre
portion of the Rivendell School site from the property tax rolls.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2001 Repealing Ordinance No 2 2001 and
Designating the Deines Barn and Twin Silos as a Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of
the City Code.
This is a housekeeping item. The Deines Barn and Twin Silos were originally designated
as a Landmark by Ordinance No. 2, 2001. When staff was preparing the final documents
for recordation, it was discovered that there was an invalid signature on the application.
The question of ownership of the Deines Barn and Twin Silos has since been resolved.
The legal owner, the Shenandoah Owners' Association, has expressed its desire that the
structures be designated. Staff, in consultation with the City Attorney's Office,
. determined that the best course of action would be to repeal the original ordinance
adopted by Council, and treat the owner's request as a new designation action.
Ordinance No. 161, 2001, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 16,
2001.
15. Items Relating to the Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (LEAF ) Contract with the
Colorado Department of Transportation Providing Funds for the Fort Collins Police
Services Drunk Driving Enforcement Program.
A. Resolution 2001-136 Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Drunk
Driving Enforcement Grant Contract #L-31-02 Between the City and the
Colorado Department of Transportation.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2001, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the General Fund for Police Services Drunk Driving Enforcement Program.
The Colorado Department of Transportation has awarded Fort Collins Police Services a
2002 Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (L.E.A.F.) grant in the amount of $35,000 to
help reduce the number of drunk drivers in Fort Collins. This grant will provide
overtime compensation for Fort Collins Police Officers who are involved in operations,
which focus on the detection and arrest of drunk drivers.
0 191
November 6, 2001
16. First Reading of Ordinance No 163 2001 Authorizing an Option to Lease, and a
Subsequent Lease of City -Owned Property at City Park North Ballfield to Cricket
Colorado Property Company, for the Location of Antenna Equipment and Related
Facilities Along With Associated Easements.
Cricket Colorado Property Company, a division of Cricket Communication ("Cricket")
contacted the Parks Division to discuss the possible lease of land for an antenna and
related equipment to enhance its cellular phone service. The property to be leased and a
related utility easement are located in City Park, north of the ballfields. Council has
approved similar leases for Sprint and Voice Stream in the same area. Through a series
of negotiations, staff has developed a proposed Site Lease with Option that meet the
needs of the City and Cricket.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No 164 2001 Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands for a Natural Area Along Spring Creek on a
Portion of Lot 1 of Shadowbrook P.U.D.
Over the past several years the Brookhaven Homeowner's Association has approached the
City inquiring whether the City was interested in purchasing land along Spring Creek as
the creek moves through its Planned Unit Development. In June of this year, the
Association presented a formal proposal to sell 2.484 acres of land along Spring Creek to
the Natural Resources Department for $10,000 dollars. Staff has reviewed and approves
the proposal.
However, due to the restrictive nature of the Association's Condominium Declaration for
the conveyance of property, the Association's Board of Directors has requested the City
acquire the property through Eminent Domain. Without eminent domain, all Brookhaven
Homeowners (approximately 50 homeowners) in the Association and any lending
institutions holding deeds of trust on each condominium would need to execute the
conveyance document pursuant to the Bylaws of the Association. Staff recommends
adoption of this Ordinance on First Reading to authorize the use of eminent domain
proceedings to acquire the property.
18. Resolution 2001 137 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation
Proceedings for the Paradigm Annexation.
The applicant, Hattman Associates, on behalf of the property owner, Paradigm
Properties, LLC, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 16.29 acres
located south of East Prospect Road, west of McLaughlin Lane, and east of Interstate 25.
The property is largely undeveloped except for the Fort Collins Motorsport retail
operation (motorcycles, ATV's, snowmobiles, and ski-doos) at the southwest corner of
192
November 6, 2001
the site. The requested zoning for this annexation is C — Commercial. The surrounding
properties are zoned C - Commercial in Larimer County to the south and east and C —
Commercial in the City to the west and the north.
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the
Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing should be established regarding the
annexation, and directs that notice be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the
time of First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances. Not less than thirty days
of prior notice is required by State law.
19. Resolution 2001-138 Establishing a Two -Person Transportation Funding Committee to
Formulate Recommendations Regarding the Funding of the City's Long -Term
Transportation Needs.
The City's 10-year capital needs related to transportation are extensive. Unfunded
transportation capital needs amount to over $415 million for this 10-year period. At
present, there is no identifiable, stable funding source to ensure that the transportation
capital needs will be constructed. Because transportation is such an integral element to
the health and vitality of the community, City Council wants to:
• I. review the long-term transportation capital needs of the City
II. develop a funding strategy related to the long-term transportation capital needs
III. determine if any transportation capital projects should be placed on the ballot for
consideration by City voters at the November 2002 election.
To facilitate this work, this resolution will establish a two -member Council committee to
work with the City Manager in preparing recommendations related to the City's
transportation capital needs and will appoint Mayor Pro Tern Bill Bertschy and
Councilmember Kurt Kastein to the Committee.
20. Routine Easement.
A. Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities, from David
Larkins, to underground electric services, located at 321 North Meldrum.
Monetary consideration: $10. Staff: Patti Teraoka.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2001, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code
Relating to Election Campaigns.
• 193
November 6, 2001
91
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No 155 2001 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated
Amounts Between Funds.
10. Second Readiniof Ordinance No 156 2001 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease -Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No 157 2001 Amending Sections 13-23 and 13-24 of the
City Code Concerning the Enforcement and Conciliation of Human Rights Violations.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No 158 2001 Amending Sections 23-82 and 23-83 of the
City Code Pertaining to Encroachments.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No 160 2001 Approving the Terms of the Sublease by
the City of a Portion of Rivendell School Property for a Community Recycling Drop-off
Facility.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No 161 2001 Repealing Ordinance No. 2 2001 and
Designating the Deines Barn and Twin Silos as a Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the City Code.
30, Second Reading of Ordinance No 159 2001 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into an Agreement with Outdoor Promotions Inc. to Provide Bus Shelters, Bus Benches,
and Advertising for the City of Fort Collins Transit Service for 20 Years.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
15. Items Relating to the Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (L.E.A.F.) Contract with the
Colorado Department of Transportation Providing Funds for the Fort Collins Police
Services Drunk Driving Enforcement Program.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2001, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the General Fund for Police Services Drunk Driving Enforcement Program.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No 163 2001 Authorizing an Option to Lease and a
Subsequent Lease of City -Owned Property at City Park North Ballfield to Cricket
Colorado Property Company for the Location of Antenna Equipment and Related
Facilities Along With Associated Easements.
194
November 6, 2001
• 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2001 Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands for a Natural Area Along Spring Creek on a
Portion of Lot 1 of Shadowbrook P.U.D.
25. Items Relating_ to the Cathy Fromme Natural Area First and Second Annexations and
Zonings.
A. Cathy Fromme Natural Area First Annexation and Zoning Resolution and
Ordinances:
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 177, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Cathy Fromme Natural Area First Annexation to
The City of Fort Collins.
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 178, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Cathy Fromme Natural Area First
Annexation.
B. Cathy Fromme Natural Area Second Annexation and Zoning Resolution and
Ordinances:
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Cathy Fromme Natural Area Second Annexation
to The City of Fort Collins.
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 180, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Cathy Fromme Natural Area Second
Annexation.
26. Items Relating to the Coyote Ridge Annexation.
A. Coyote Ridge First Annexation and Zoning Resolution and Ordinances:
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Coyote Ridge First Annexation to The City of Fort
Collins.
0 195
November 6, 2001
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Coyote Ridge First Annexation.
B. Coyote Ridge Second Annexation and Zoning Resolution and Ordinances:
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Coyote Ridge Second Annexation to The City of
Fort Collins.
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Coyote Ridge Second Annexation.
C. Coyote Ridge Third Annexation and Zoning Resolution and Ordinances:
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Coyote Ridge Third Annexation to The City of
Fort Collins.
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Coyote Ridge Third Annexation.
D. Coyote Ridge Fourth Annexation and Zoning Resolution and Ordinances:
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Coyote Ridge Fourth Annexation to The City of
Fort Collins.
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Coyote Ridge Fourth Annexation.
E. Coyote Ridge Fifth Annexation and Zoning Resolution and Ordinances:
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Coyote Ridge Fifth Annexation to The City of Fort
Collins.
196
November 6, 2001
• 3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Coyote Ridge Fifth Annexation.
F. Coyote Ridge Sixth Annexation and Zoning Resolution and Ordinances:
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Coyote Ridge Sixth Annexation to The City of
Fort Collins.
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 176, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Coyote Ridge Sixth Annexation.
27. Items Relating to the Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area Second Annexation and
Zoning.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 181, 2001, Annexing Property
Known as the Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area Second Annexation to The
City of Fort Collins.
• C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 182, 2001, Amending the Zoning
Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property
Included in the Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area Second Annexation.
28. Items Relating to the Pineridge Fifth Annexation and Zoning,
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 183, 2001, Annexing Property
Known as the Pineridge Fifth Annexation to The City of Fort Collins.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 184, 2001, Amending the Zoning
Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property
Included in the Pineridge Fifth Annexation.
29. Items Relating to the Westchase I and II Annexation and Zoning.
A. Items Relating to the Westchase I Annexation.
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 185, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Westchase I Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins.
0 197
November 6, 2001
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 186, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Westchase I Annexation.
B. Items Relating to the Westchase II Annexation.
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 187, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Westchase II Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins.
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 188, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Westchase II Annexation.
32. Items Relating to the Johnson Property Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 190, 2001, Amending the Zoning
Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That
Certain Property Known as the Johnson Property Rezoning.
33. First Reading_of Ordinance No 191 2001 Amending the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Adjust the Capital Improvement Expansion Neighborhood Parkland and Street
Oversizing_Fees for Increases Due to Increases in the Cost of Construction and Raw
Water.
34. Items Relating to Utility Rates for 2002.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 192, 2001, Amending Chapter 26, Article III,
Division 4 Relating to User Rates and Charges for Water.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 193, 2001, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV,
Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to Wastewater Fees and Charges.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 194, 2001, Amending Chapter 26, Article VII,
Division 2 of the Code of the City Relating to Stormwater Fees.
36. Items Relating to the 2002 Downtown Development Authority Budget.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 195, 2001, Appropriating Operating Funds and
Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal
198
November 6, 2001
• Year Beginning January 1, 2002, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown
Development Authority for 2002.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 196, 2001, Appropriating Revenue in the
Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt
Service for the Year 2002.
38. First Reading of Ordinance No. 197, 2001, Beine the Annual Appropriation Ordinance
Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2002 and Adopting the Budget
for the Fiscal Years Beginning January 1. 2002, and Ending December 31, 2003 and
Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2002.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and
Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 164, 2001
Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings
of Certain Lands for a Natural Area Along Spring Creek on a
Portion of Lot 1 of Shadowbrook P.U.D., Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
Over the past several years the Brookhaven Homeowner's Association has approached the City
inquiring whether the City was interested in purchasing land along Spring Creek as the creek
moves through its Planned Unit Development. In June of this year, the Association presented a
formal proposal to sell 2.484 acres of land along Spring Creek to the Natural Resources
Department for $10, 000. Staff has reviewed and approves the proposal.
However, due to the restrictive nature of the Associations' Condominium Declaration for the
conveyance of property, the Associations' Board of Directors has requested the City acquire the
property through eminent domain. Without eminent domain, all Brookhaven Homeowners
(approximately 50 homeowners) in the Association and any lending institutions holding deeds of
trust on each condominium would need to execute the conveyance document pursuant to the
Bylaws of the Association. Staff recommends adoption of this Ordinance on First Reading to
authorize the use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire the property. "
0 199
November 6, 2001
Councilmember Hamrick asked why the City is buying the land. Ron Mills, Right -of -Way
Acquisition Agent, stated that Natural Resources feels that the property would be a good
acquisition to expand the corridor along Spring Creek and the trail.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if this is a natural area. Mills stated that it is in the floodplain
and that a trail is already there.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if this acquisition fits within an overall natural areas policy.
Mills stated that the Natural Resources Department has reviewed the acquisition and wants to go
ahead with the purchase.
Councilmember Hamrick asked why this was not reviewed by the Natural Resources Advisory
Board. Mills stated that the Natural Resources Department felt that because of the small
consideration being paid, it was not necessary to take this item to the Board.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the consideration is below the appraised value. Mills stated
this is the estimated value in the floodplain.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Ordinance No. 164, 2001 on First Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Consent Calendar Follow-uo
Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding item #15 Items Relating to the Law Enforcement
Assistance Fund (L.E.A.F.) Contract with the Colorado Department of Transportation Providing
Funds for the Fort Collins Police Services Drunk Driving Enforcement Program and item #19
Resolution 2001-138 Establishing a Two -Person Transportation Funding Committee to
Formulate Recommendations Regarding the Funding of the City's Long -Term Transportation
Needs.
Councilmember Bertschy spoke regarding item #13 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 160,
2001, Approving the Terms of the Sublease by the City of a Portion of Rivendell School Property
for a Community Recycling Drop-off Facility.
Councilmember Tharp spoke regarding item #18 Resolution 2001-137 Finding Substantial
Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Paradigm Annexation.
0
November 6, 2001
Staff Reports
City Manager Fischbach reported that the City has recently closed on the 500th home loan in the
HOME program. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated that this is a milestone for this program
and introduced HOME Program Manager Julie Smith.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Kastein reported regarding North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality
Planning Council discussions regarding adoption of a resolution finding a positive air quality
conformity determination for the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan, adoption of the
transportation plan, approval of the addition of three projects into the transportation
improvement program, adoption of a pension and deferred compensation plan for the MPO, a
public input solicited regarding a vote on the regional transportation authority in 2003.
Mayor Martinez reported regarding Health and Safety Committee discussions concerning the
ordinance pertaining to enforcement issues relating to three unrelated persons residing in one
dwelling, a proposed teen night ordinance, and a proposed ordinance regarding electric assisted
bicycles.
• Councilmember Bertschy reported on the CSU Liaison Committee discussions regarding
emergency response to an anthrax hoax perpetrated at one of the federal installations near
campus.
Councilmember Bertschy thanked the HOME program staff and spoke regarding the intent and
benefits of the program for first time homebuyers.
Mayor Martinez assured the public that the City is in safe hands regarding emergency response.
ANNEXATIONS AND ZONINGS
CONSENT CALENDAR
25. Items Relating to the Cathy Fromme Natural Area First and Second Annexations and
Zonings.
A. Cathy Fromme Natural Area First Annexation and Zoning Resolution and
Ordinances:
1. Resolution 2001-145 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Cathy Fromme Natural Area First Annexation.
0 201
November 6, 2001
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 177, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Cathy Fromme Natural Area First Annexation to
The City of Fort Collins.
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 178, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Cathy Fromme Natural Area First
Annexation.
B. Cathy Fromme Natural Area Second Annexation and Zoning Resolution and
Ordinances:
1. Resolution 2001-146 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Cathy Fromme Natural Area Second Annexation.
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Cathy Fromme Natural Area Second Annexation
to The City of Fort Collins.
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 180, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Cathy Fromme Natural Area Second
Annexation.
This is a request for a 100% voluntary annexation. The acreage of the two annexation
sites are as follows: Cathy Fromme Natural Area First Annexation is approximately 81
acres, and Cathy Fromme Natural Area Second Annexation is approximately 156 acres.
The recommended zoning is Public Open Lands (POL), which is consistent with the
Structure Plan designation of Rural/Open Lands and Stream Corridors.
26. Items Relating to the Coyote Ridge Annexation.
A. Coyote Ridge First Annexation and Zoning Resolution and Ordinances:
1. Resolution 2001-139 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Coyote Ridge First Annexation.
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Coyote Ridge First Annexation to The City of Fort
Collins.
202
November 6, 2001
• 3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Coyote Ridge First Annexation.
B. Coyote Ridge Second Annexation and Zoning Resolution and Ordinances:
1. Resolution 2001-140 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Coyote Ridge Second Annexation.
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Coyote Ridge Second Annexation to The City of
Fort Collins.
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Coyote Ridge Second Annexation.
C. Coyote Ridge Third Annexation and Zoning Resolution and Ordinances:
• 1. Resolution 2001-141 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Coyote Ridge Third Annexation.
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Coyote Ridge Third Annexation to The City of
Fort Collins.
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Coyote Ridge Third Annexation.
D. Coyote Ridge Fourth Annexation and Zoning Resolution and Ordinances:
1. Resolution 2001-142 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Coyote Ridge Fourth Annexation.
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Coyote Ridge Fourth Annexation to The City of
Fort Collins.
0 203
November 6, 2001
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Coyote Ridge Fourth Annexation.
E. Coyote Ridge Fifth Annexation and Zoning Resolution and Ordinances:
1. Resolution 2001-143 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Coyote Ridge Fifth Annexation.
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Coyote Ridge Fifth Annexation to The City of Fort
Collins.
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Coyote Ridge Fifth Annexation.
F. Coyote Ridge Sixth Annexation and Zoning Resolution and Ordinances:
Resolution 2001-144 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Coyote Ridge Sixth Annexation.
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Coyote Ridge Sixth Annexation to The City of
Fort Collins.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 176, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Coyote Ridge Sixth Annexation.
This is a request for a 100% voluntary annexation. The acreage of the six annexation
sites are as follows: Coyote Ridge First is approximately 2.5 acres, Coyote Ridge Second
is approximately 181 acres, Coyote Ridge Third is approximately 161 acres, Coyote
Ridge Fourth is approximately 192 acres, Coyote Ridge Fifth is approximately 325 acres,
Coyote Ridge Sixth is approximately 235 acres. All six annexations are publicly owned
property. The recommended zoning is Public Open Lands (POL), which is consistent
with the Structure Plan designation of Rural/Open Lands and Stream Corridors.
27. Items Relating to the Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area Second Annexation and
Zonin .
204
November 6, 2001
• A. Resolution 2001-147 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area Second Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 181, 2001, Annexing Property
Known as the Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area Second Annexation to The
City of Fort Collins.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 182, 2001, Amending the Zoning
Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property
Included in the Fossil Creek Wetlands Natural Area Second Annexation.
This is a request for a 100% voluntary annexation. The site is approximately 24.74 acres
of publicly owned property located south of Trilby Road, east of Timberline Road, north
of Carpenter Road, and west of I-25. The recommended zoning is Public Open Lands
(POL).
The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA). According to
policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County, contained
in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, the City
• will annex property within the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation
according to Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS).
28. Items Relating to the Pineridge Fifth Annexation and Zoning.
A. Resolution 2001-148 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Pineridge Fifth Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 183, 2001, Annexing Property
Known as the Pineridge Fifth Annexation to The City of Fort Collins.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 184, 2001, Amending the Zoning
Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property
Included in the Pineridge Fifth Annexation.
This is a request for a 100% voluntary annexation. The site is approximately 4.76 acres
of publicly owned property located southeast of Hughes Stadium including a portion of
the South Overland Trail and County Road 42C rights of way, and small piece of the
Pineridge Natural Area. The recommended zoning is Public Open Lands (POL).
0 205
November 6, 2001
29. Items Relating to the Westchase I and II Annexation and Zonine.
A. Items Relating to the Westchase I Annexation.
1. Resolution 2001-149 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Westchase I Annexation.
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 185, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Westchase I Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins.
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 186, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Westchase I Annexation.
B. Items Relating to the Westchase II Annexation.
1. Resolution 2001-150 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations
Regarding the Westchase II Annexation.
2. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 187, 2001, Annexing
Property Known as the Westchase II Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins.
3. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 188, 2001, Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning
Purposes the Property Included in the Westchase II Annexation.
This is a request for a 100% voluntary annexation. The acreage and location of the two
annexation sites are as follows: The Westchase I Annexation and Zoning is
approximately 4.279 acres, and is located within and just east of the Timberline Road
right-of-way, just north of the intersection of Timberline and Trilby. The Westchase II
Annexation and Zoning is approximately 157.93 acres and is located north of the current
Trilby Road alignment and east of the Westchase I Annexation and Zoning. Both
properties are located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Planning Area.
Both properties are located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA).
According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer
County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth
Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the UGA when the
property is eligible for annexation according to state law.
November 6, 2001
0 ***END ANNEXATION AND ZONING CONSENT'
Annexation and Zoning
Consent Calendar Items Adopted.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, withdrew item #25A Cathy Fromme Natural Area First
and Annexation and Zoning Resolution and Ordinances from the Annexation and Zoning
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Hamrick withdrew all items from the Annexation and Zoning Consent Calendar.
City Manager Fischbach stated that staff would be available to answer specific questions
regarding the annexation and zoning agenda items. He noted that these proposed annexations
have been reviewed in study sessions with the City Council and spoke regarding the intent of
natural areas annexations.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, stated that these annexations were originally proposed as
a way to deal with law enforcement in the natural areas and that the issue in reality relates to the
creation of enclaves for future annexations. He stated that the Council should not have given the
direction to create these enclaves for future annexations until a detailed analysis was available.
. He stated for the record that this will prove not to be an economic benefit to the City in the
future. He stated that there needs to be a community discussion regarding the final geographical
boundaries of the City followed by discussion of policies in this area.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about police services to natural areas. City Manager Fischbach
stated that the reference has been to the legal ability of Fort Collins Police Sery ices to respond
to the natural areas. He noted that two rangers work in the natural areas.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if there would be an increase in staffing by rangers. Greg
Byme, CPES Director, stated that there would be no change in this staffing level.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the estimated $6.6 million in capital construction cost for
two miles of widening South Taft Hill Road mentioned in the memo outlining costs for
annexation of the natural areas and whether the City currently receives the Larimer County
regional road impact fee. Ron Phillips, Transportation Services Director, stated that the City
currently collects this fee.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the County impact fees would increase if the natural areas are
annexed. Phillips stated that the regional roads eligible for improvement using the County
impact fees include South Taft Hill Road.
0 207
November 6, 2001
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the relationship between this fee and the annexations.
City Manager Fischbach stated that there is no relationship between the two.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the policy regarding changing the Growth Management
Area and whether an annexation can be done before the GMA is amended. City Manager
Fischbach stated that in all cases, with the exception of natural areas, that an annexation can not
be done outside of the Urban Growth Area. He stated that natural area annexations are an
exception allowed under both the intergovernmental agreement with the County and City Plan.
Byrne stated that if the City wishes to annex outside of the Growth Management Area, the
County will consider that annexation to be a de facto movement of the boundary set in the
intergovernmental agreement. He noted that the County has joined as a property owner in the
petition for annexation of some of the property proposed for annexation.
Councilmember Hamrick noted discrepancies between City Plan and the IGA. Byrne stated that
staff recommends approval of the annexations.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the IGA language was specifically approved to provide a policy
to allow for annexation of natural areas outside of the Urban Growth Area. Byrne stated that the
language was approved for that purpose for areas south of County Road 32.
Mayor Martinez asked if the IGA language or the City Plan language should be followed. City
Attorney Roy stated that staff is reviewing the language to determine if there is an inconsistency
and stated that if the language is inconsistent that City Plan is not binding upon the Council
when making a decision to annex. He stated that the IGA permits, but does not require, these
annexations.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that the sole purpose of these annexations is creation of an
enclave which would mean the involuntary annexation of the enclave in the future. He asked if
the City has approached any of the businesses or citizens in the enclave about voluntary
annexation. City Manager Fischbach stated that the enclave would consist of about 1,781 acres
and that there are approximately 3,000 to 5,000 businesses and homeowners in that area and that
the creation of an enclave for annexation is the most effective way to deal with annexation in this
type of situation. He stated that he has reviewed the policy implications with Council on a
number of occasions. He noted that an economic analysis regarding annexation of the enclave
would be done at the time of annexation because circumstances change over time.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if portions of the enclave could annex voluntarily. City
Manager Fischbach stated that there is no practical way to do voluntary annexations in this case.
Councilmember Hamrick noted with regard to item 427 Items Relating to the Fossil Creek
Wetlands Natural Area Second Annexation and Zoning that this is a 100% voluntary annexation,
which he supports, and that it is within the Growth Management Area. He stated that there are
frflF3
November 6, 2001
• no cost figures presented in connection with this annexation. City Manager Fischbach stated that
is a comer site of raw land. Troy Jones, City Planner, stated that the policy is not to do such a
cost analysis for each individual voluntary annexation. He stated that this is a vacant piece of
property.
Councilmember Hamrick expressed a concern regarding the cost analysis process because there
may be some annexations Council would like to deny or delay depending on the cost of the
annexation. Jones stated that it is staffs understanding that a cost analysis is to be provided for
enclaves and that additional staff time would be needed to provide cost analyses for all voluntary
annexations.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that it was her understanding that a cost analysis would be
provided when the annexation would involve homes, residences and businesses rather than
vacant land.
Councilmember Kastein asked that staff provide a summary to Council regarding the policy
discussion regarding cost analyses from the study sessions.
- Councilmember Hamrick asked for clarification regarding item #28 Items Relating to the
Pineridge Fifth Annexation and Zoning because this is a 100% voluntary annexation located
-- • outside of the Growth Management Area. He asked if this is a natural area or if it is located next
to a natural area. Jones stated that the property is part of the Pineridge natural area.
Councilmember Hamrick asked with regard to item #29 Items Relating to the Westchase I and II
Annexation and Zoning if these properties are vacant. Jones stated that these properties are
currently under development and outlined the agreement with the County regarding annexation.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if Council would like to see a cost analysis on this type of
annexation. City Manager Fischbach stated that prior to Second Reading that he would provide
information to Council regarding the cost analysis policy previously agreed to by Council.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt and
approve the above listed Annexation and Zoning Consent Calendar items, 425 through #29.
Councilmember Tharp stated that the issue of economic impacts of adding an enclave to the City
was thoroughly discussed in Council study sessions.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that when the City owns and is responsible for open lands
property, the property should be annexed. She stated that the proposed uses are public in nature
and that most of these lands are undevelopable and that such properties should be brought into
the City.
0 209
November 6, 2001
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would not support the motion because the City is
annexing outside of the Growth Management Area. He stated that the referenced enclave is also
outside of the Growth Management Area. He stated that there has not yet been a discussion
regarding how large the City should be, that this is creation of a flagpole annexation, and that the
citizens can not afford the enclave annexation.
Councilmember Wanner stated that he supports the motion because an opportunity cost will be
created if the City does not move quickly to make it possible to annex this area. He spoke
regarding the importance of creating a City with a compact urban form. He stated that an
economic analysis will be done at the time annexation of the enclave is considered.
Councilmember Kastein stated that this follows policy directives to annex land that is eligible for
annexation that is inside the Urban Growth Area and to create enclaves. He stated that the
decision regarding annexation of the enclaves will be made by a future Council. He stated that
he would support the motion.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that the natural areas have been purchased as part of the process
to separate the City from other entities and that way to reconcile the Growth Management Area
is to make these natural areas the hard edge of the City beyond which the City will not annex.
Mayor Martinez stated that he would support the motion. He requested a definition regarding a
"flagpole annexation." City Manager Fischbach stated that these are not flagpole annexations
because an enclave is being created.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez,
Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Hamrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 159, 2001
Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an
Agreement with Outdoor Promotions, Inc. to Provide
Bus Shelters, Bus Benches, and Advertising for the
City of Fort Collins Transit Service for 20 Years Adopted on Second Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
Outdoor Promotions, Inc., submitted the successful proposal to the City's May 11, 2001, Request
for Proposal No. P-793 regarding providing bus shelters and bus benches and sale of
advertising space on the same. The City and Outdoor Promotions, Inc. currently have a Services
210
November 6, 2001
Agreement that expires December 31, 2001. This Ordinance, which was adopted 5-1 on October
16, 2001, authorizes the City to extend that agreement for a 20 year period commencing January
1, 2002 and extending through December 31, 2021. "
City Manager Fischbach stated that this item appears on the discussion agenda because there was
not a unanimous vote on First Reading.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, spoke in opposition to the ordinance because it would
exempt the City from its own sign code. He stated that the City should have negotiated to
receive a portion of the gross rather than net proceeds. He stated that philosophically this makes
the City a partner in the "buy -consume" society and contributes to more visual pollution and
degradation of the urban environment. He stated that it will now be possible to advertise "gas
guzzling" sport utility vehicles at bus stops, while it will not be possible to advertise any kind of
political message such as one encouraging people to use alternative modes of transportation.
John Walker, attorney and member of Citizens for Protection of Property Values, stated that bus
bench signs should not be allowed at any given location with bus shelter signs, that there should
not be directional arrows on signs, that liquor store advertising should not be allowed, that bus
shelter signs should not be allowed in residential areas, and that bus shelter signs should not be
allowed without the consent of the adjoining property owner. He stated that this will contribute
. to visual distraction and pollution and flies in the face of the sign code. He asked how much
quality of life will be sacrificed to save a troubled bus system.
Mayor Martinez asked if the City exempts itself from the sign code. City Attorney Roy stated
that Section 24-1 of the Code generally prohibits signage in the public right-of-way and that
there are exceptions for City directional signs. He stated that this would be another exception.
Mayor Martinez asked why the City exempts itself. City Attorney Roy stated that there is a need
to provide directional signs to provide information to the public, and that in this instance that if
the program is to be approved by the Council then the exception becomes necessary to allow it.
Mayor Martinez asked whether the contract is to the advantage of the City. Jim O'Neill,
Director of Purchasing and Risk Management, stated that there is an error in the agenda item
summary and that the City is to receive a percentage of the gross revenues. Tom Frazier, Multi -
Modal Transportation Group Leader, stated that the contract provides that the contractor will
provide a minimum amount to the City each year.
Mayor Martinez asked about the City's reliance on sales tax. City Manager Fischbach stated
that the City is heavily reliant upon sales tax and that staff is looking at this issue. Mayor
Martinez stated that this is an argument in favor of promoting the "buy -consume" society.
0 211
November 6, 2001
Mayor Martinez asked about the issue of directional arrows on bus shelter advertising. Frazier
stated that one bus shelter has an ad with an arrow pointing toward a particular store and that
there have been no problems with this ad at this time. He stated that staff reviews signs to
ensure that misdirection will not be given to motorists.
Councilmember Kastein stated that it appears that staff has the authority to review signs for
safety issues. He asked if bus benches are allowed with bus shelters. Frazier stated that a bus
shelter and a bus bench can be allowed at the same site and that advertising is permitted on only
one, although this is not stated in the contract.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the percentage of bus shelters in residential areas. Frazier
stated that the sign code provides restrictions to placing advertising in residential areas and that
the contract specifies the placement of a certain number of shelters or benches without
advertising in residential areas.
Councilmember Kastein if the City monitors the placement of signs that might be offensive to
some people in certain areas. City Attorney Roy stated that the sign code does not have
provisions for asking individual property owners if they like the content of advertising or think it
is compatible with their use. He stated that there are controls within the contract that allow the
City to regulate the advertising and that the City could take advertising content into
consideration.
Councilmember Kastein requested that the City Attorney summarize those controls in a memo
and make the memo available to Mr. Walker. City Attorney Roy stated that these controls are
also spelled out in the contract. Frazier stated that the City contacts property owners before a
bus bench is put in to ensure that advertising is not from competitors and that the property owner
is aware of what is taking place.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if there are other areas in which the City exempts itself from its
own requirements. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, clarified the exemptions outlined in the
sign code and stated that the exemption allowing bus bench signs is not in the sign code. City
Attorney Roy stated that the sign code regulates signage on private property.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that the issue of exemptions for other things is not pertinent to
the discussion of this ordinance and suggested that this issue be dealt with in a memo from staff.
Councilmember Tharp requested an explanation why political and advocacy ads will not be
allowed. City Attorney Roy stated that this is to avoid an appearance of partiality or
endorsement and to avoid the appearance that the City is creating a public forum.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt
Ordinance No. 159, 2001 on Second Reading.
212
November 6, 2001
• Councilmember Hamrick stated that he understands the need for additional revenue but
disagrees with the method of obtaining this revenue. He stated that this will contribute to visual
pollution and that there are safety issues. He stated that he would not support the motion.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that he voted for the ordinance on First Reading and will not
support the ordinance on Second Reading.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Tharp,
Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Bertschy and Hamrick.
Items Relating to the Completion of the Fall Cycle of the Competitive Process for
Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing Projects/Programs and
Community Development Activities: The City's Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Home Investment
Partnerships HOME) Program, the City's Affordable Housing Fund, and Reprogrammed
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Funds, Adopted.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
• "Executive Summary
The Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program and the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program provide funds from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to the City of Fort Collins which can be allocated to affordable housing
related programs and projects, thereby, reducing the demand on the City's General Fund
Budget to address such needs. The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of three
resolutions. The first resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding
with HOME funds for the FY 2001-2002 Program year, which started on October 1, 2001. The
second resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding from the City's
Affordable Housing Fund And, the third resolution establishes which programs and projects
will receive funding from reprogrammed CDBG Program funds.
A. Public Hearing and Resolution 2001-151 Approving the FY2001-2002 Home Investment
Partnerships Program for the City of Fort Collins.
B. Public Hearing and Resolution 2001-152 Allocating Funding from the City's Affordable
Housing Fund.
C. Public Hearing and Resolution 2001-153 Approving the Allocation of Reprogrammed
Community Development Block Grant Funds.
0 213
November 6, 2001
BACKGROUND:
The City Council is being asked to consider the adoption of three resolutions. The first
resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding with HOME funds for
the FY 2001-2002 Program year, which started on October 1, 2001. The second resolution
establishes which programs and projects will receive funding from the City's Affordable Housing
Fund. And, the third resolution establishes which programs and projects will receive funding
from reprogrammed CDBG Program funds. Additional background material about the
competitive process is included in Attachment "A".
Since early January of this year, the CDBG Commission and members of the City staffs
Affordable Housing Team have conducted public hearings to assess community development and
housing needs in Fort Collins, conducted technical assistance training workshops for applicants,
and solicited applications for funding. The CDBG Commission reviewed written applications,
personally interviewed each applicant, analyzed the applications, and formulated a list of
recommendations to the City Council as to which programs and projects should receive funding.
The competitive process established refined criteria to determine priorities between proposals
received by the City. The ranking criteria are divided into five major categories. Each category
is given a total number of points that has been weighed according to their importance with
respect to local and federal priorities. The five major categories are:
1. Impact/Benefit
2. Need/Priority
3. Feasibility
4. Leveraging Resources
5. Capacity and History
The Impact/Benefit criteria provide greater rewards to proposals that target lower income
groups. The Need/priority criteria help assure the proposal meets adopted City goals and
priorities. The Feasibility criteria reward projects for timelines and documented additional
funding. The leveraging resources criteria reward proposals which will return funds to the City
(loans) and for their ability to leverage other resources. And, the Capacity and History criteria
help gage an applicant's ability to do the project and reward applicants that have completed
successful projects in the past (have good track records). The ranking sheet used to assist the
CDBG Commission is presented in Attachment A.
The Commission also considered the funding guidelines contained in the Priority Affordable
Housing Needs and Strategies report adopted by the Council on February 2, 1999. These
guidelines include:
214
November 6, 2001
• HOME funds should generally be allocated as follows: 90% for Housing projects
and 10% for Program Administration. HUD HOME Program regulations also
require the City to set aside 15% for Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) projects and allow an allocation of 5% for CHDO
operations;
• CDBG funds should generally be allocated as follows: 65% for Housing projects;
10% for Program Administration; 10% for Public Facilities; and 15% for Public
Services.
• funds allocated to housing should generally be divided as follows: 70% for rental
projects and 30% for homeownership opportunities; and
• the average subsidy should be $5,000 per unit, with relatively more funding to
projects producing housing for lower income families.
The CDBG and HOME Programs are ongoing grant administration programs funded by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City of Fort Collins has received
CDBG Program funds since 1975 and HOME Program finds since 1994. The City is an
Entitlement recipient of CDBG funds and a Participating Jurisdiction recipient of HOME funds,
meaning the Ciry is guaranteed a certain level of funding each year. The level of funding is
dependent on the total amount offends allocated to the programs by Congress and on a formula
developed by HUD, which includes data on total population, minorities as a percentage of
• population, income levels, housing stock conditions, etc. Additional background information on
the City's CDBG and HOME Programs is presented in Attachment B.
AVAILABLE FUNDS
The amount of the City's HOME Grant for FY 2000-2001 is $685,000. Added to the HOME
grant will be $100,000 of HOME Program Income to make a combined amount of $785,000
available for projects and administrative purposes. Subtracting $78,500 (10% maximum
allowed by HOME regulations) for administrative purposes, leaves $706,500 available for
projects and programs. The HOME funds will be combined with $6711950 from the City's
Affordable Housing Fund and $1,090,000 of reprogrammed CDBG funds to create a potential
pool of $2, 468,450 offends available for programs from the fall cycle of the competitive process.
CDBG funds are typically allocated in the spring and are, thus, not available for use in the fall
cycle of the competitive process. However, of some projects previously allocated CDBG funds,
one has been canceled, another changed the scope of its funding from acquisition to
construction, and the Denver Office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development has
reversed a previous ruling concerning the eligible use of CDBG funds to pay City development
impact fees effecting two other projects. Since the City had previously allocated CDBG funds to
several entities for their projects, substitute funds had to be found to honor the City's
commitments. The $1, 090, 000 of reprogrammed CDBG funds comes from the following sources:
• 215
November 6, 2001
$250, 000 Concorde Capital —project canceled
$300, 000 CARE Housing — changed from acquisition to construction
$250, 000 Elizabeth Street Apartments - impact fees
$290, 000 Volunteers of America - impact fees
The following summarizes the amount and sources of available funds:
AMOUNT
SOURCE
$ 796,950
FY 2001 HOME Grant and Program Income
671,950
City's Affordable Housing Fund
1,090,000
Reprogrammed CDBG Funds
-----------------
$2, 558,900
Total
SELECTION PROCESS
On January 11, 2001, the CDBG Commission held a public hearing to obtain citizen input on
community development and affordable housing needs. The HOME Program office placed legal
advertisements in local and regional newspapers starting in July to solicit requests for HOME
funded programs and projects and for proposals for the use of funding from the City's
Affordable Housing Fund.. The application deadline was Thursday August 23. At the close of
the deadline the City received 11 applications requesting a total of approximately $4.1 million.
Copies of all applications were forwarded through the City Manager's office to the City Council
on September 13 and placed in the Council Office for review. Also on September 13 copies of
the applications were distributed to the CDBG Commission.
On Thursday October 4, the CDBG Commission met to hear presentations and ask clarification
questions from each applicant. The Commission then met on Thursday October 11 for the
purpose of preparing a recommendation to the City Council as to which programs and projects
should be funded within funds available from the fall cycle of the competitive process. At this
meeting the Commission reviewed the written applications, the applicant's verbal presentation,
the information provided during the question and answer session, and reviewed the performance
of agencies who received HOME funds or funding in other previous years. The Commission
then worked on the formulation of their list of recommendations.
CDBG COMMISSION'S LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
HUD HOME regulations limit the amount of available funds that can be
categories. Funds for Administrative purposes are limited to 10% of the
means 90% of the Grant must be used for housing projects. Within t
216
allocated to various
HOME Grant which
:e 90% required for
November 6, 2001
• projects, the City is required to set aside 15% for Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) projects and allow an allocation of 5% for CHDO operations. CDBG
funds can not be used for construction purposes
The Commission, thus, not only had to decide which applicants presented programs and projects
which best fit into the City's HOME and CDBG Programs, but also had to insure funding
allocations were kept within HUD regulations and follow the funding guidelines contained in the
Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies report.
Listed below is a summary of each applicant's initial request for funding and the Commission's
list ofrecommendations.
City of Fort Collins - Home Buyer Assistance
Request: $300, 000
Recommendation: $200, 000 HOME funds and $100, 000 Affordable Housing Fund (AHF)
This program is administered by the Advance Planning Department and provides zero -
percent interest loans to eligible first-time homebuyers. The assistance covers down
• payment and closing costs to a maximum of $8, 000 for households at 51 % to 80% of Area
Median Income (AMI) and $16,000 for buyers at or below 50% of AMI. The $100,000
requested from the AHF will be used in those cases where properties are currently rented
and subjected to Federal relocation requirements. Approximately 62 households will be
assisted in the next year with this program.
Habitat for Humanity — Development Fees and Down Payment Assistance
Request: $ 73, 242
Recommendation: $47, 000: $15, 000 AHF for development fees and $32, 000 AHF for
homebuyer assistance
Habitat is requesting HOME funds to acquire two new lots in the Waterglen subdivision and
funding to pay for Development and Building Permit Fees for two current lots soon to be
under construction.
In addition, Habitat requests AHF funding for down payment to support large family
acquisition (four bedrooms), because values of these homes may exceed the FHA maximum
cost limits ($175, 750) imposed by federal regulations on the HOME Program.
0 217
November 6, 2001
Care Housing — Fairbrooke Heights Development
Request: $500, 000
Recommendation: $470, 000: $206, 250 HOME funds, $194, 700 CHDO f unds, and $69, 050
AHF
CARE plans to use HOME funds for construction purposes. The project will be a 36 unit
multi family rental development, which will consist of two- bedroom units. The site is
located at 1827 Somerville Drive, which is east of the intersection of Somerville Drive and
Langshire Drive.
Bethphage - Acquisition of Group Home
Request: 195, 000 AHF Declining Balance Loan
Recommendation: $111,900AHF
Bethphage is interested in acquiring and rehabilitating a single-family home for five individuals
with developmental disabilities. All individuals identified to live in the project will be disabled
and have incomes at or below 30% ofAMI.
Fort Collins Housing Authority - Rigden Farm Land Acquisition
Request: $241,000
Recommendation: $241, 000 CDBG f unds
The Fort Collins Housing Authority and Sierra Land Corporation are forming a joint venture to
develop 120 affordable housing units at Rigden Farm located at Timberline and Drake. HOME
funds are requested to acquire the land for 33 rental units at 50% ofAMI
Specifically, the total project will consist of 33 rental units at 50% of AMI, 38 for -sale units at
40-60% ofAMI, 32 single-family units at 60-80% ofAMI, 6 carriage houses renting at 60-80%
ofAMI, 56 single family detached units at 75-95% ofAMI, of which 45 units will be market rate.
Fort Collins Housing Corporation — Stanford Road Triplex Acquisition and Rehabilitation
Request: $92,250
Recommendation: $92, 250 CDBG f nds
218
November 6, 2001
• The Fort Collins Housing Corporation requests funds to purchase a triplex consisting of one
each two bedroom, three bedroom and four bedroom units. This property requires approximately
$12,000 of rehabilitation. Financing will be secured through First National Bank at a rate of
5.75% for 80% loan, adjustable every 5 years.
Neighbor to Neighbor — Northern Front Range Family Transitional Housing
Request: $20, 000
Recommendation: $0
Neighbor to Neighbor is requesting funding for Tenant Based Rental Assistance to provide gap
funding that will keep formerly homeless families and individuals with mental illness in
transitional housing to allow for opportunities of self-sufficiency. Funds would support the
Northern Front Range Continuum of Care, a regional partnership that supports homeless in
Northern Colorado.
Lagunitas - Redtail Affordable Housing
Request: $1,260,000
• Recommendation: $0
The Lagunitas Company is requesting funding for acquisition and construction of an 84-unit
condominium development. All of the units will be for purchase and will be affordable to
households between 50% and 80% ofAM7. Units in this development will be one, two, and three
bedroom units configured in 8-12 units per building, and all will include, either an attached or
detached garage.
KB Home - Provincetowne
Request: $927,598
Recommendation: $0
KB Home is requesting funds to subsidize four areas in the development of the Provincetowne
project: general construction, handicap modifications for 12 units, permitting and development
fees, and down payment assistance for homeowners.
Provincetowne is a new subdivision in Fort Collins located at Lemay and Trilby. Approximately
850 units are planned in a variety of housing types, including single-family detached and
• 219
November 6, 2001
townhouse style. KB Home has already committed to making 30% of these units or 255 units
affordable.
In this particular development phase, there will be 141 affordable housing units. The designs
include two and three bedroom floor plans, and one story ranch units at the ends of the multiple
unit buildings.
Volunteers of America — Elderly Housing
Request: $290, 000
Recommendation: $71, 000 HOME funds and $219, 000 AHF
Volunteers of America is proposing a 60-unit independent living apartment complex reserved for
very low-income elderly located at 1401 Horsetooth Road. This project is a HUID 202 project,
with commitments of $4,156,400 for construction -related activities and $800,500 for a five year
rental subsidy to support the project. The project has previously received $250,000 of HOME
funds from the City.
Elizabeth Street Apartments —Elderly Housing
Request: $250, 000
Recommendation: $125, 000 HOME funds and $125, 000 AHF
Request by Simpson Housing for funds to pay City development Impact/Building permit Fees to
help construct 50 senior apartments on West Elizabeth Street.
Total amount of funding requested = $4,149,090
Total amount of funding available = $2,558,900
Total amount offunding allocated = $1,802,150
The total amount of funding requests considered by the CDBG Commission was approximately
$4.1 million, however, only about $2.5 million of funds are available. With the amount of total
requests far exceeding available funding, obviously not all applications could be funded. Also,
some applicants requested funds for projects that are ineligible for the use of CDBG funds.
The CDBG Commission has recommended full funding for five (5) proposals, and partial
funding for two (2) other projects. Proposals, which did not receive full funding, were deemed
of a lower priority and, in some cases, a lack offunds, program category limitations, or funding
220
C�
November 6, 2001
guidelines prohibited their full funding. The Commission has recommended no funding for three
(3) proposals. The Commission's reasons for either full funding, partial funding, or no funding
are presented in Attachment C. The Commission has recommended allocation of $333,250 of
the $1, 090, 000 of reprogrammed CDBG funds. The balance of $756, 750 of the reprogrammed
CDBG funds will be available for allocation in the 2002 spring cycle of the competitive process.
Summary of the
Community Development Block Grant Commission's
Recommendations for Funding
Request Recommendation
$92,250 $92,250
$250,000 $250,000
$290,000 $290,000
$500,000 $470,000
$300,000 $300,000
$73, 242 $47, 000
$195,000 $111,900
$241,000 $241,000
$20,000 $0
$927,000 $0
$1,260,000 $0
Applicant — Project
Ft. Collins Housing Corporation — Housing rehabilitation
Elizabeth Street — Development fees
Volunteers ofAmerica - Development fees
CARE Housing, Inc. — Fairbrooke
City of Fort Collins — Downpayment assistance
Habitat for Humanity — Homebuyer assistance &
Development fees
Bethphage — Group home
Ft. Collins Housing Authority — Rigden Farm
Neighbor to Neighbor — Tenant based rental assistance
KB HOME — Provincetowne
Lagunitas - Condos"
0 221
November 6, 2001
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Ken Waido, Chief Planner, presented background information regarding the agenda item and
stated that Council's approval of the three Resolutions would determine which projects and
programs would receive funding from the HOME program, the Affordable Housing Fund, and
reprogrammed CDBG funds for affordable housing. He spoke regarding the CDBG
Commission's review process and recommendations.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt
Resolutions 2001-151, 2001-152 and 2001-153.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that there was an excellent presentation at the Study Session by
staff and the CDBG Commission. He thanked the Commission for another round of hard work.
Councilmember Tharp stated that the CDBG Commission's process gives the Council a clear
picture of why decisions are made. Councilmembers Wanner, Kastein and Weitkunat and Mayor
Martinez also thanked the Commission for its hard work.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.)
Items Relating to the Johnson Property
Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, Adopted.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
A. Resolution 2001-155 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 190, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of
the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property.
Known as the Johnson Property Rezoning.
APPLICANT. The James Company
2919 Valmont Road, Suite 204
Boulder, CO 80301
222
November 6, 2001
• OWNERS: Spring Creek Farms, LLP
3432 Carlton Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to rezone approximately 217 acres of property located on the northeast corner
of Timberline and Drake Roads. The property is currently zoned T — Transitional, as shown in
the attached diagram titled "Existing Zoning. " The Structure Plan designation for the property
is a combination of Industrial, Urban Estate, Low Density Mixed -Use Residential, Medium
Density Mixed -Use Residential, and Neighborhood Commercial Center, as shown in the attached
diagram titled "Existing Structure Plan Designation. " The applicant is proposing to amend the
Structure Plan to change the configuration of the Industrial designation, remove the
Neighborhood Commercial Center designation from the site, slightly modify the boundary line
between Medium Density Mixed -Use Residential and Low Density Mixed -Use Residential, and to
slightly modify the boundary line between Urban Estate and Low Density Mixed -Use Residential,
as shown in the attached diagram titled, "Applicant's Proposed Structure Plan Configuration. "
The applicant is also requesting to rezone the property to a combination of LMN, MMN, I, and
UE to correspond to the requested Structure Plan amendment, as shown in the attached diagram
titled "Applicant's Proposed Zoning Configuration. "
• BACKGROUND:
The inherent nature of the T — Transition Zone District is that property is entitled to be taken out
of such zone district in a "timely manner. " The Land Use Code requires that staff take proposed
rezonings of any property in the T — Transition District to the next regularly scheduled Planning
and Zoning Board hearing at least 14 days after the rezone application is submitted, and
requires Council to Rezone the property within 60 days of the Planning and Zoning Board
hearing.
The Structure Plan Resolution
The Resolution to amend the Structure Plan is accompanied by two options of Exhibit A. The
first option is the Structure Plan Amendment as proposed by the applicant (labeled "Exhibit A —
Applicant'). The second option is the Structure Plan Amendment as proposed by the P&Z
Board (Labeled "Exhibit A — P&Z'). Council will need to decide which of the two versions of
"Exhibit A" it would like the Resolution to adopt.
0 223
November 6, 2001
Amending the Structure Plan
The Structure Plan is an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning is not
consistent with the current Structure Plan, however, the applicant proposes to amend the
Structure Plan in a manner that would make the Structure Plan consistent with the zoning that is
proposed. Appendix C of the Comprehensive Plan specifies that the City Council must make the
following two findings in order for the Structure Plan to be amended:
The existing Structure Plan is in need of the proposed amendment, and
The Structure Plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent
with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof.
The applicant proposes the following four changes to the Structure Plan
The first proposed change to the Structure Plan is to eliminate the Neighborhood Commercial
Center designation on the site. The Planning and Zoning Board agreed with this change to the
Structure Plan at both the September 17th and October 18th hearings.
The second proposed change to the Structure Plan is to change the configuration between the
Medium Density Mixed -Use Residential and the Low Density Mixed -Use Residential. The
Planning and Zoning Board agreed with this change to the Structure Plan at both the September
17th and October 18th hearings.
The third proposed change to the Structure Plan is to move the boundary line between the
Industrial designation and Low Density Mixed -Use Residential designation roughly 500 feet to
the north to a location that coincides with an agreed upon historic buffer for the Jessup
farmstead. The Planning and Zoning Board agreed with this change to the Structure Plan at the
October 18th hearing.
The Historic Preservation staff, Advance Planning staff, Current Planning Staff, and an historic
preservation consultant (hired by the City) have been working with the applicant for several
months to determine an appropriate treatment of the two historic farmsteads on the site.
Because the applicant proposes a Structure Plan designation boundary based on the edge of an
appropriate historical buffer for the northern farm site (the Jessup farmstead), the treatment of
the historical buffer becomes an issue to be discussed with this rezone and Structure Plan
amendment application. After much negotiation and careful consideration, staff has come to an
agreement with the applicant on the appropriate buffer area configuration around the Jessup
farmstead site. The proposed district boundary between the Industrial designation and the Low
Density Mixed -Use Residential designation is based on the southern edge of the historic buffer
224
November 6, 2001
• area for the Jessup farmstead. The agreed upon historic buffer is diagramed in the attachment
titled "Concept Plan: Jessup Farm Compound. "
As currently depicted on the Structure Plan, there are 33.4 acres designated as Industrial in the
north corner of the site. The northwestern most 12.28 acres of the Industrial designated area
consists of the historic Jessup farmstead and it's buffer area. The applicant proposes that the
southeastern 21.12 acres of the area currently designated as Industrial be changed to the Low
Density Mixed -Use Residential designation.
Clark Mapes from the Advance Planning Department made the following comments with regard
to the request to move the boundary line of the Industrial designation in the area south of the
Jessup farmstead:
"After considering this spot [between the Jessup Farm complex and the adjacent LMN
neighborhood to the south] in greater detail, we agree [with the applicant] that it
appears impractical to extend any meaningful or significant industrial use into this small
area, isolated from adjacent industrial development to the east by topography and the RR
tracks. Regarding the relationship to Industrial uses across Timberline to the west, we
do not believe it is worthwhile to push for Industrial use on a piece of high ground south
of the farm. It could be highly intrusive, sandwiched between the farm site and the future
• neighborhood. "
Troy Jones from the Current Planning Department made the following comment with regard to
the removal of the Industrial designation from the area south of the farm site on the Structure
Plan:
"The applicant has included a diagram of their anticipated design that addresses the
transition between the neighborhood and the farmstead. This design includes a buffer
area outside the limits of the farm complex with a single loaded street along the northern
edge of the neighborhood so the fronts of the housing units will face the open farmstead
buffer rather than backyards and privacy fences. Front yards and the human interaction
of residential street activity is a much preferred treatment of the edge to a valuable
historical resource such as the Jessup farmstead than industrial uses are. If industrial is
required to be located between the two uses it is likely that that area of the development
could end up as mini storage or some other incompatible use. The northern edge of the
residential neighborhood is also much better served by having a historic farmstead as its
neighbor than an industrial use. To the west, Timberline is a logical edge and will be a
huge barrier (future 6-lane arterial). Such a barrier would be a logical edge between
different types of uses such as industrial and residential. To the east, the change in
topography associated with the valley wall, and the barrier of the railroad track makes
0 225
November 6, 2001
the area in question have little to no visual or functional relationship to the industrial
land in the adjacent Prospect Industrial Park "
The applicant has indicated that they are not industrial developers, so if the southeastern 21.12
acre piece of the industrial designated property were to be zoned Industrial, it would not be
developed by this applicant; therefore, the applicant would not have any control over the design,
character or specific use that would be sandwiched between the historic Jessup Farmstead and
the LMN neighborhood to the south.
Staff believes that there is a need to change the Structure Plan with regard to the reconfiguration
of the Industrial designation on the site because the Industrial designation would be far less
compatible with the historic Jessup Farmstead and the adjacent LMN neighborhood to the south
than would a designation of Low Density Mixed -Use Residential. Furthermore, staff finds that
the proposed Structure Plan amendment would promote public welfare and be consistent with
the goals, principles and policies of City Plan because adaptive reuse of the historic resource
would be better suited to be located adjacent to a residential neighborhood than to vacant
developable industrial land.
The fourth proposed change to the Structure Plan is to change the location of the boundary line
between the Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood designation and the Urban Estates
designation.
As currently depicted on the Structure Plan, there are 94.89 acres of Urban Estate designation
on the property. At 2 units per acre, the existing UE designated property allows 189 dwelling
units at an overall average density of 2 units per acre. The applicant now proposes, and staff
supports, a layout where 85.58 acres of the site is designated Urban Estate in a configuration
where the boundary line between the two designations shifts some UE to the west of the original
line and some LMN east of the original line. If the property were to be zoned consistent with the
applicant's proposed Structure Plan amendment, there would be between 28 and 56 additional
units allowed as a result of the change.
Advance Planning staff has repeatedly expressed that the lines on the Structure Plan are general
lines that are color codes painted with a "broad brush" approach. It has always been the
intention that, unless a Structure Plan line was specifically shown on a roadway, section line or
specific kind of clear demarcation or topographical feature (such as a ridgeline or river), the
line should have some inherent "wiggle room. " On the current Structure Plan configuration,
there is a rough north -south line, which designates Urban Estate east of the line and Low
Density Mixed -Use Residential and Industrial west of the line. This line does not specifically
coincide with the valley wall, but has upper and lower valley wall ground on both sides.
Planning staff would argue that this location of this line is subject to some variation. Advance
226
November 6, 2001
• Planning and Current Planning staff have been working with the applicant for several months to
come up with a specific conceptual layout of streets and blocks in the vicinity of the proposed
boundary line and, given a closer site -specific consideration, it makes good planning sense to
allow this line to vary slightly. As a result of the variation to this line on the Structure Plan,
there would only be a net change from Urban Estate to Low Density Mixed -Use Residential of
less than 10 acres of land, which does not compromise the ability of the remaining Urban Estate
land to achieve the desired density transition between the higher intensity uses at the top of the
valley wall and the low intensity uses intended for the lower ground associated with the Poudre
River Corridor.
Stafff:nds that there is a need to change the Structure Plan with regard to the reconfiguration of
the Urban Estate and Low Density Mixed -Use Residential designation boundary because the
Structure Plan was not intended to be precise at this location, and a closer site -specific
consideration of this designation in this location accomplishes the intent to step down the level of
intensity toward the river valley just as well as a plan reflecting the current Structure Plan
configuration. Furthermore, staff finds that the reconfiguration of the Urban Estate and Low
Density Mixed -Use Residential designation boundary would promote the public welfare and be
consistent with the goals, principles and policies of City Plan and that the proposed amendment
accomplishes the intent to provide a transition of intensity from the top of the high intensity uses
at the southwest corner of the site to the low intensity uses at the lower southeast corner of the
• site just as well as if the Structure Plan were not changed.
The Zoning Ordinance
The Ordinance does not include legal descriptions of each of the zone district boundaries, but
rather refers to a zone district configuration "more particularly described in Exhibit A, " which
is attached to the Ordinance. There are two versions of Exhibit A. The first is the zone district
configuration proposed by the applicant (labeled "Exhibit A — Applicant'). The second is the
zone district configuration supported by the P&Z board (labeled "Exhibit A — P&Z'). Given the
fact that there are two possible zone boundary configurations under consideration, the most
practical way to present the information is diagrammatically for First Reading. Once Council
chooses which of the zoning configurations it supports on First Reading, then the legal
description for the chosen configuration will be generated and put into the Ordinance for Second
Reading.
0 227
November 6, 2001
The Land Use Code
The al2plicant proposes four zone districts for the property; MMN—Medium Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood District, LAN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District, UE — Urban
Estate District, and I — Industrial District. The locations of the applicant's proposed zone
district boundaries correspond to the proposed Structure Plan amendments.
Section 2.9.4(H) of the LUC specifies the process for amending the zoning map. This section of
the code specifies two mandatory requirements and three additional considerations.
Mandatory Requirements
Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and/or
Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property.
The proposed zoning configurations are consistent with the proposed Structure Plan
amendments, and, if Council amends these components of the Structure Plan as recommended,
the rezone request will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Additional Considerations
Whether, and the extent to which, the proposed zoning change is compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate
zone district for the land;
Whether, and the extent to which, the proposed zoning change would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not
limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation,
wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment;
Whether, and the extent to which, the proposed zoning change would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern.
A key issue that needs to be considered regarding the rezoning of the property is how the area
adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Facility should be zoned. Based on the policies and
procedures that apply to wastewater treatment plants by the Colorado Water Quality Control
Division (CWQCD), there must be a minimum 1000 foot setback from such wastewater plants to
habitable structures (Please see the attached memo titled, "Water Quality Site Application').
The applicant has proposed to zone this buffer area UE, but has offered a restrictive covenant
that specifically disallows any habitable structures within 1000 feet of the planned wastewater
treatment plant expansion. "Habitable structures" is defined in CWQCD state policy as
residences, schools, and commercial structures at which people work on a regular basis. At both
228
November 6, 2001
• the September 17 and October 18 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings the Board recommended
RC - River Conservation zoning for this 1000 ft. setback area.
Both the RC and UE zone districts permit habitable structures. Regardless of which of the two
zones the buffer area ends up in, there needs to be a condition placed on the zone district that
disallows habitable structures within the buffer area. Simply obtaining a contract from the
developer agreeing to a restrictive covenant disallowing habitable structures within the buffer
area does not preclude the need to have conditional zoning. Paul Eckman, the Deputy City
Attorney, has explained that staff may accept the restrictive covenant, but using such a contract
as the only method to disallow the habitable structures within the buffer would be considered
"contract zoning" and is not permitted. A restrictive covenant may be accepted as part of the
development application, but in order to legally tie the restriction to the zoning, a condition must
be placed on the rezoning application. The restrictive covenant then becomes an additional tool
with which the condition placed on the zoning can be tracked and enforced. Given the need to
restrict any habitable structures from being developed in the wastewater plant's buffer area, and
the fact that either RC or UE would require the need for a condition to be placed on the zoning,
staff supports the applicants requested UE configuration which includes the wastewater plant's
1000 foot buffer area. A conditional zoning that disallows any habitable structures in the
wastewater plant's 1000 foot buffer would allow either UE or RC zone to be compatible with the
plant. Otherwise, the proposed zoning for the entire site is compatible with existing and
• proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district configuration.
The Natural Resources Department does not consider the proposed zoning to have any adverse
impacts on the natural environment.
To the extent that it can be determined at the zoning stage of the development review process,
staff finds that the proposed Zoning Map amendment would result in a logical and orderly
development pattern because the proposed configuration of zone district boundaries would
promote a transition of intensityfrom the top of the high intensity uses at the southwest corner of
the site to the low intensity uses at the lower southeast corner of the site.
0 229
November 6, 2001
Initial Zoning Upon Annexation
The site was annexed as part of the Timberline Annexation in November of 1997. At the time the
annexation was under review, staff and the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended that
the property be zoned in accordance with the configuration shown on the attachment diagram
titled "Timberline Annexation and Zoning". When the annexation came before Council, they
decided to zone the property T — Transition upon annexation rather than the recommended
zoning configuration. Much of the concern with regard to the zoning this property at that time
revolved around whether or not it would be appropriate to assign active farm areas a zone
district that did not allow farming, and that perhaps it would be more appropriate to zone the
property into developable zone districts at such time the property was proposed to be developed.
The Council minutes of the first and second reading of the annexation hearings are attached.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearings
Because the applicant is requesting a Structure Plan amendment as part of the rezone request,
staff couldn't support the proposed Structure Plan re -configuration without additional review
time beyond the "timely hearing" schedule. The applicant voluntarily postponed the Planning
and Zoning Board hearing to September 17, 2001 to give staff adequate time to review the
proposed Structure Plan Amendment, which upon a detailed review, staff supported.
A version of the Johnson Property Structure Plan Amendment and Rezoning was heard and
voted on at the September 17, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. The Planning and
Zoning Board forwarded a recommendation to Council to approve the Structure Plan and
Zoning Map amendments as redrawn in the diagram titled "Recommended Configuration by
P&Z on 9117" by a vote of 5-0. Boardmembers expressed frustration that a recommendation
was required to be made that night because they felt that all of the pertinent issues had not been
resolved between staff and the applicant. Board members also voiced frustration about being
involved in designing variations of the plan at the hearing.
In the days following the September 17, 2001 hearing, staff and the applicants met to resolve the
issues that the Planning and Zoning Board believed were pertinent to the justification of the
proposed Structure Plan amendment. The applicants then made several design refinements
based on design solutions proposed by staff, which in turn changed the proposed Structure Plan
and Zoning Map configuration to be different than any scenario that had been discussed by the
Planning and Zoning Board at the September 17, 2001 hearing. Rather than take a
recommended zoning configuration to Council that the Planning and Zoning Board had not seen
or commented on, it was staffs recommendation to the applicant that the project go back to the
Planning and Zoning Board for a recommendation on the new proposed configuration. The
230
November 6 2001
•applicant again voluntarily postponed the "timely hearing" requirement to allow the issue to go
back to the Planning and Zoning Board, this time for the October 18, 2001 Hearing.
At the October 18, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing, the Board recommended by a vote
of 4-0 to deny the Structure Plan Amendment and Rezone request as proposed by the applicant.
The Board, however, did forward a recommended configuration for a Structure Plan Amendment
and Rezone that it could support, by a vote of 3-1, as shown in the attached diagram titled
"Recommended Configuration by P&Z on 10118. "
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Greg Byrne, CPES Director, presented background information regarding the agenda item and
stated that there is general agreement among all parties on most issues. He stated that there are
several issues that need to be decided by the Council.
Troy Jones, City Planner, presented information regarding the approximately 220 acre site and
its surroundings. He stated that the site is currently zoned T-Transition and showed an aerial
photograph of the site. He spoke regarding the existing Structure Plan designations for the site
and the applicant's proposal for a Structure Plan amendment. He stated that Council would need
to determine that any rezoning application is consistent with the Structure Plan and that the
•Structure Plan would need to be amended if it is found that the rezoning is not consistent with
the Structure Plan. He stated that the proposed Resolution would amend the Structure Plan and
that the proposed Ordinance would change the zoning. He stated that the Planning and Zoning
Board has recommended something slightly different than the applicant's proposal. He stated
that the areas of difference relate to (1) the zone district line between the Low Density Mixed
Use Neighborhood and the Urban Estate Neighborhood and (2) the zoning of a corner piece. He
stated that the first item for Council decision is the Structure Plan Amendment and that once that
is decided the zoning needs to be decided. He outlined the two main issues in detail. He stated
that staff concurs with the applicant in both points of disagreement, and he outlined the reasons
for staffs recommendation regarding both issues. He noted that Council has received a memo
dated November 6 regarding the two issues and that the Option 2 of the ordinance attached to
that memo is recommended for adoption if Council agrees with the staff recommendation
regarding the conditional zoning of the corner property. He stated that the ordinance included in
the agenda would be used if Council agrees with the Planning and Zoning Board that no
condition on the zoning ordinance is necessary. He stated that there are two versions of Exhibit
A: (1) reflecting the applicant's proposal and (2) reflecting the Planning and Zoning Board's
recommendation. He stated that the Council motion regarding the ordinance should also refer to
which Exhibit is included in the motion for approval.
City Attorney Roy read the new Section 2 (for either option of the ordinance) for the record:
"Section 2. No habitable structures (residences, schools, and commercial structures at which
people work on a regular basis) shall be permitted within one thousand feet of the existing Drake
0 231
November 6, 2001
Road Wastewater Treatment Plant, or within one thousand feet of the expansion to said plant
planned by the Wastewater Utility as of the date of this ordinance, as shown on Exhibit B
attached hereto."
Mayor Martinez requested clarification regarding Exhibit B. Jones stated that the Exhibit is a
point of clarification regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant and its future expansion.
David Johnson, representative of the Johnson family, spoke in favor of the James Company
application. He stated that the family sold it property to the James Company because it is a
Colorado company and because it will preserve the family homesteads and historical houses. He
stated that the family found out only several months ago at a hearing about the thousand foot
buffer for the wastewater treatment plant. He stated that the Urban Estate zoning with the
condition would be best for everyone.
Melinda Bartlett, representing the James Company, the applicant, spoke regarding the caliber of
the project, the work done with regard to historic preservation, and the areas of disagreement
between the applicant and the Planning and Zoning Board. She outlined the applicant's position
with regard to the location of the Urban Estate line abutting a proposed roadway and the
arbitrariness of the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation to include river conservation
on the wastewater plan buffer. She stated that the intent of the no -build zone would be upheld
by adoption of a conditional zoning and that inclusion of a river conservation are in the treatment
plan buffer would affect about 32 acres of the development and would reduce the number of
units that could be placed in the Urban Estate zone area. She spoke regarding the costs of
development and the need to have enough units to make the development cost effective. She
requested that the City Council uphold the applicant's proposal to amend the Structure Plan as
presented by City staff to include the revised location for the Urban Estate line and to eliminate
the river conservation area.
Jim Postle, President of James Company, stated that it is important to the developer to have a
good mix of products and spoke regarding the site constraints of the proposed development. He
stated that the issue of economic is important to the developer. He spoke in favor of Urban
Estates zoning with the buffer condition.
Councilmember Bertschy asked for clarification regarding the permitted uses and density in the
Urban Estate zone. Jones stated that several types of residential, commercial and institutional
uses are allowed in the Urban Estate zone. He stated that the residential development would
have to be no more than two units per acre on the average and that the development could be
clustered in a pod of up to five units per acre within the pod provided that 50% or more of the
zone district must be preserved as open space.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the density transfer would be lost in the river corridor setting.
Jones stated that if the 32.5 acres were zoned River Corridor that the remainder of the 84 acre
232
November 6, 2001
•piece would only be able to have the two units per acre and consequently about 74 units would
be taken away from what would otherwise be allowed in the Urban Estate zone.
Councilmember Bertschy asked for clarification regarding the issue of the location of the Urban
Estate line. Jones spoke regarding the potential changes in density and allowable units.
Councilmember Tharp asked about the triangle located in the middle of the development. Jones
stated that is the Cargill Seed Research Farm and that staff has been working with them and
other area property owners on a conceptual basis regarding what will eventually happen to those
properties. He stated that this application does not propose to change the Structure Plan for the
Cargill site.
Councilmember Tharp asked about compatibility of the Cargill site with the surrounding
housing. Jones stated that staff s opinion is that it is compatible.
Councilmember Tharp asked about the potential future complaints from homeowners who will
locate outside of the thousand foot buffer this close to the wastewater treatment plant. Mike
Smith, Utilities Director, spoke regarding planned odor control improvements for the plant and
stated that it is possible for odors outside of the thousand foot buffer under certain conditions.
Councilmember Tharp expressed a concern that the residents who buy those houses will come
. back to the City in the future demanding that odor from the plant be mitigated.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about health and safety issues with the location. Smith stated
that there are issues related to odors, airborne pathogens and hazardous materials storage on the
treatment plant site.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the City's long term liability with these types of issues.
City Attorney Roy suggested that a brief executive session to discuss those types of issues might
be appropriate.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adjourn into
Executive Session to discuss legal issues relating to the subject presently pending before the
Council pursuant to Section 2-31 of the City Code. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays:
None.
I�I:lolu(711f[�7�[ a ::
("Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session and following the Executive
Session at 9:20 p.m.)
0 233
November 6, 2001
Councilmember Hamrick asked for clarification regarding the findings that would need to be
made to determine that the Structure Plan should be amended: (1) that the existing Structure
Plan is in need of the proposed amendment and (2) that the Structure Plan amendment will
promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies
of City Plans and its elements. He asked about the need for changing portions of the UE zone to
L-M-N zoning. Byrne stated that the intent is to give definition to the placement of the line in
area where there is no roadway or geographic feature.
Councilmember Hamrick asked how this would promote the public welfare or how it
demonstrates a need. Byrne stated that the public welfare will be served by an appropriate mix
of uses and by appropriate location of those uses with relation to the road network. He stated
that this is an effort to match the conditions on the ground with some good planning and the
zoning districts.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if increasing the densities closer to the wastewater treatment
plant exposes more people to air quality issues. Byrne replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tharp noted that this is current T-Transition zoning and that a fairly dense
residential development will be located on this site in proximity to the wastewater treatment
facility. She asked if this is the proper use for that land when taking into consideration that the
wastewater treatment plant and its uses will eventually expand. She questioned whether the City
should take on the additional expense for mitigating the wastewater treatment plant to serve a
residential area that is not there now. She expressed a concern regarding placement of this many
houses close to the existing wastewater treatment plant and asked if other Councilmembers
shared this concern.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that he lives about 2,500 feet from a sewage treatment plant and
that he knew that when he bought the house. He stated that others live within 800 feet of the
plant and that in his five years on Council he has not received one complaint regarding sewage
treatment plant air quality issues. He stated that he is not concerned about the proximity issues
and that staff has indicated that mitigation efforts will be done in connection with plant
expansion.
Councilmember Kastein stated that the proposed Structure Plan does not change a lot with
regard to proximity of densities to the plant because this is not a transitional Structure Plan. He
stated that the proposed Structure Plan amendment would move the zoning line slightly and
noted that the UE zone has the potential to be five units per acre when clustered. He stated that
the Structure Plan change is not a substantial change, and that if the Structure Plan worked
before it should still work after this change.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated that residential housing is located in proximity to electrical
substations, oil wells and railroad tracks. She stated that homebuyers are aware of what is
234
November 6, 2001
• nearby. She stated that it is important to look at the Structure Plan in the context that when it
was developed we knew that the lines were not specific. She stated that the change is consistent
with the goals and vision of City Plan now that the specific development is being discussed since
the Structure Plan lines were never intended to be straight, hard lines and were intended to move
with topography and circumstances. She stated that it seems logical that the lines would now
follow the streets.
Councilmember Wanner requested clarification regarding development of the historic farm site
and slope areas shown on the map. Jones stated that there might be adaptive reuse of the farm
sites and that they will be preserved. He stated that the sloped areas will not be developed
because they are the steepest part of the valley wall.
Councilmember Wanner stated that any concerns regarding the treatment plant do not extend to
the change in the L-M-N zone area because that is at least 1,400 feet from the plant. He asked
for clarification about the units that would be lost to the developer if the corner property was
zoned River Corridor. Jones stated that the buffer area is 32.5 acres and that this would include
roughly 74 units with two per acre.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the developer took the wastewater treatment plant into
consideration in the development plan.
•Ms. Bartlett, representing the James Company, stated that the developer is cognizant of the
issues associated with locating residential development near any type of unfavorable conditions.
She stated that the developer is prepared to issue disclosures to all prospective homebuyers
regarding the issues associated with proximity to the wastewater treatment plant, a railroad and
arterial roadways. She stated that the developer would also consider having the homebuyers sign
waivers of liability for the benefit of the wastewater treatment plant.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if such disclosure would be given to anyone who would buy the
home in the future. Ms. Bartlett stated that the disclosure would be included in the covenants
that would run with the land. She stated that the developer has looked into preparing a pamphlet
that would notify interested parties regarding conditions, issues and available remedies.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the 10-acre neighborhood park shown on the map is City
owned property. Ms. Bartlett stated that it would be City owned property and that the parcel has
not yet been located pending the results of the rezoning.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt
Resolution 2001-155 based on 'Exhibit A - Applicant" and based on the findings that the
existing Structure Map is in need of the proposed amendment based on changing conditions,
historical aspects and recent issues arising with odor, and that the Structure Map does promote
the public welfare and will be consistent with the visions, the goals and the principles and
0 235
November 6, 2001
policies of City Plan. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy,
Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Hamrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt
Ordinance No. 190, 2001 Option 2 on First Reading based on the zoning map of "Exhibit A -
Applicant" with the inclusion of a condition that no habitable structures shall be permitted within
1,000 feet of the wastewater treatment plant or its expansion thereof planned by the Wastewater
Utility as of the date of this ordinance.
Councilmember Bertschy asked if the motion is in a proper format. City Attorney Roy stated
that the motion incorporates the condition and the Exhibit and proposal recommended by the
applicant and by staff. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman stated that staff will provide on
Second Reading a metes and bounds description of the graphic charts selected.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that he would support the ordinance. He noted that one concern
that has been expressed is that this increases density even though the plan does in fact fit the
intent of City Plan and is the type of infill project that is being encouraged. He stated that
lowering the density and not promoting good design, including the future roadway system,
would be a grave mistake given the physical constraints of the site.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would not support the ordinance because of concerns
regarding the wastewater treatment plant and the clustering of neighborhoods near such a
facility.
Mayor Martinez stated that he would support the ordinance and thanked staff for its work on this
issue.
Councilmember Tharp spoke regarding the developer's attention to the issues that might be
created by proximity to the treatment plant. She stated that she would support the ordinance.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez,
Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Hamrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED
BUDGET CONSENT ITEMS
33. First Reading of Ordinance No 191 2001 Amending the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Adiust the Ca ital Improvement Expansion Neighborhood Parkland and Street
236
November 6, 2001
• Oversizing Fees for Increases Due to Increases in the Cost of Construction and Raw
Water.
This Ordinance increases the fee schedules for the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees
and Neighborhood Parkland Fee by the change in the 2000 Denver -Boulder -Greeley
Consumer Price Index. Costs in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees ("CIEF")
Study and the fee schedule for the Neighborhood Parkland Fees were calculated using
costs from 1995. The relevant governing provisions of the City Code call for increases to
keep up with annual inflation, and the fees were last adjusted in late 2000. This
Ordinance increases the CIEF and the neighborhood parkland fees by the projected
increase in the CPI-U of 4.91%. For the Neighborhood Parkland and Community
Parkland fees, the fee levels are increased by $75.00 and $126.58, respectively to cover
the increase in the raw water cost. The Street Oversizing fees are being increased by
5.96%, the increase in the cost of construction as reported in the Engineering News
Record.
34. Items Relating to Utility Rates for 2002.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 192, 2001, Amending Chapter 26, Article III,
Division 4 Relating to User Rates and Charges for Water.
• B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 193, 2001, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV,
Division 4 of the Code of the City Relating to Wastewater Fees and Charges.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 194, 2001, Amending Chapter 26, Article VII,
Division 2 of the Code of the City Relating to Stormwater Fees.
As proposed in the 2002-2003 budget, the three ordinances increase the City's utility
rates for customers inside the city limits by 6% for water service and 2% for wastewater
service. Stormwater rates increase by 45% for all customers. Electric rates do not change.
The proposed changes will become effective on billings issued on or after January 1,
2002. The Water Board reviewed and recommended the rate changes in conjunction with
its discussion on the 2002-2003 budget.
35. Resolution 2001-154 Adopting a Revenue Allocation Formula to Define the City of Fort
Collins' Contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority Budget for the Year 2002 for
Operations and Maintenance.
In December 1981, the Council entered into an agreement with the Poudre Valley Fire
Protection District, creating the Poudre Fire Authority.
0 237
November 6, 2001
According to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the
Poudre Valley Fire Protection District, the City will contribute funding for maintenance
and operating costs to the Authority based on a "Revenue Allocation Formula" ("RAF").
The RAF is to be set annually based upon a percentage of sales and use tax revenues
(excluding dedicated sales and use tax revenues that must be spent on specific projects)
and a portion of the operating mill levy of the City's property tax. Article X, Section 20
of the State Constitution limits the rate of growth to a combination of the Denver -
Boulder Consumer Price Index and additions to the local property tax base primarily due
to construction and annexation. Although voters passed a ballot measure in November,
1997 allowing the City to retain excess revenues over the growth limits imposed by
Article X, Section 20, the RAF is still reviewed annually and proportionately reduced, if
necessary, if City revenues exceed the estimated annual percentage increase in revenues
that the City would be permitted to retain under Article X, Section 20.
36. Items Relating to the 2002 Downtown Development Authority Budget.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 195, 2001, Appropriating Operating Funds and
Approving the Budget of the Downtown Development Authority for the Fiscal
Year Beginning January 1, 2002, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown
Development Authority for 2002.
The Downtown Development Authority (the "DDA") adopted the proposed DDA budget
for 2002, totaling $416,740, and determined the mill levy necessary to provide for
payment of all properly authorized expenditures incurred by the District, at its regular
meeting of November 1, 2001.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 196, 2001, Appropriating Revenue in the
Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund for Payment of Debt
Service for the Year 2002.
This Ordinance appropriates funds for 2002 from the tax increment received by the City
for the DDA for debt service payments. Debt service and annual lease payments include:
the semi-annual payments of the 1992 DDA Refunding Revenue Bonds in the amount of
$1,321,938, the DDA share of the Parking Structure lease payment of $282,406, the
amount of $35,112 for the annual interest payment on the subordinate revenue bonds
issued in 2000, and $100,000 for various projects identified by the DDA board from tax
increment revenues from expanding the DDA boundaries to include the Mulberry/Lemay
Crossing Property.
***END BUDGET CONSENT***
238
November 6. 2001
•Councilmember Hamrick withdrew Item #34 Items Relating to Utility Rates for 2002 from the
Budget Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Budget Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner
and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Items Relating to Utility Rates for 2002 Adopted on First Reading_,
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 192, 2001, Amending Chapter 26, Article III, Division 4
Relating to User Rates and Charges for Water.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 193, 2001, Amending Chapter 26, Article IV, Division 4
of the Code of the City Relating to Wastewater Fees and Charges.
• C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 194, 2001, Amending Chapter 26, Article VII, Division 2
of the Code of the City Relating to Stormwater Fees.
As proposed in the 2002-2003 budget, the three ordinances increase the City's utility rates for
customers inside the City limits by 6% for water service and 2% for wastewater service.
Stormwater rates increase by 45% for all customers. Electric rates do not change. The proposed
changes will become effective on billings issued on or after January 1, 2002. The Water Board
reviewed and recommended the rate changes in conjunction with its discussion on the 2002-2003
budget.
Additionally, the proposed water and wastewater ordinances eliminate the rate differences
between inside and outside city customers. Historically, the rates paid by customers outside the
City limits were one and one half times higher than the water and wastewater rates paid by
customers inside the City limits. The cost to provide service inside and outside the City limits no
longer supports the different rate levels. In 1994 Council directed staff to 'freeze" the outside
City rates until the inside rates "caught up". With the proposed increases for 2002, the outside
rates are now close to equivalent to rates inside the City limits and in a few cases, customers
outside the City may pay less than they would on inside City rates. Staff recommends that the
water and wastewater rates for customers outside the City limits be established at the same
levels as for like customers inside the City limits beginning in 2002.
0 239
November 6, 2001
The table below shows the impacts of the proposed rate adjustments on a typical single family
residential customer's monthly bill.
Typical Residential Utility
Increase
Increase
Customer
2001
2002
$
%
Water
$32.16
$34.09
$1.93
6.0%
160, 000 izal. per year
Wastewater
$16.19
$16.51
$0.32
2.0%
(5, 600 gal./mo. WQC)
Electric
$31.98
$31.98
$0.00
0%
(500 kWh per month)
Stormwater
(8,600sq. ft. lot, light
$8.13
$11.79
$3.66
45.0%
runoff)
Total Utility Bill
$88.46
$94.37
$5.91
6.7%
BACKGROUND:
Water
If approved by City Council, water rates for all customer classes inside the City limits will
increase by 6%. The increase is necessary to pay debt service for the Water Treatment Facility
Master Plan and to fund the operations and maintenance of the City's water system. Separate
rates for customers outside the City limits will be eliminated and customers outside of the City
limits will pay the same rates as similar customers within the City limits. Historically these
customers had higher rates than inside city users.
A housekeeping change is also included in the water rate ordinance. The term "minimum" has
been replaced by "base" in order to clarify that the fixed monthly portion of the rate is in
addition to the charges for water usage.
It is anticipated that future water rates will increase an average of 6% in 2003. No water rate
increases are currently projected during the years 2004-2006.
Wastewater
This ordinance will increase wastewater rates for all customers inside the City limits by 2% in
2002. The increase is needed to fund the operations and maintenance of the City's wastewater
240
November 6, 2001
• system and to finance capital improvements. Separate rates for customers outside the City limits
will be eliminated and customers outside of the City limits will pay the same rates as similar
customers within the City limits. Historically these customers had higher rates than inside city
users.
The wastewater rate ordinance also eliminates the classification of users "Category I.• Special
Without Agreement". There are no customers in this rate class and it is no longer needed.
Current projections indicate an additional 2% wastewater increase in 2003. An annual 2.5%
rate increase is projected for the years 2004-2006.
Stormwater
The proposed ordinance increases Stormwater fees by 45% for all customers. The increase is
necessary to fund the operations and maintenance of the City's stormwater system, to pay debt
service and to accelerate the citywide capital improvements program. Current projections
indicate an annual 10% increase will be necessary in the years 2003 and 2004, 7% in 2005, and
6% in 2006 The proposed rate increases are in accordance with the Stormwater Financing
Plan adopted by City Council Resolution 2001-93.
The ordinance also eliminates the minimum monthly bill for stormwater service. The minimum
• applied to only five customers with lot sizes less than 380 square feet. This is a housekeeping
change to simplify administration of the rates.
Electric
No electric rate increases are projected for 2002 or 2003. It is currently projected that a 2%
increase may be necessary in 2004 and in 2006
Summary
Although it has been necessary for the City to raise utility rates over the years, a comparison
with inflation shows that increases to the total City utility bill for a typical residential customer
have been less than inflation since 1985. The following graph shows the overall increases in
monthly utility charges for a typical single family residential customer in comparison with
inflation. The typical residential customer is defined as electric use of 500 kWh per month,
metered water use of 160, 000 gallons per year, wastewater with 5,600 gal./mo. winter quarter
consumption, and stormwater for a 8,600 sq. ft lot with light runoff.
0 241
November 6, 2001
City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item.
Councilmember Hamrick asked how the typical single-family residential customer's monthly
bill is defined and whether it is an average. Dave Agee, Utilities Chief Financial Officer, stated
that the following averages are used: 160,000 gallons of water per year, 5,600 gallons for
wastewater for winter quarter consumption, 500 kilowatt hours per month for electricity, and an
8,600 square foot lot with light runoff coefficient for stormwater.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the average is determined by looking at all customers. Agee
stated that staff uses amounts that are typically used in the industry for comparative data and that
City rates are then applied to this amount of use.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if the majority of homeowners in Fort Collins are above or
below these usage amounts. Agee stated that staff has not looked at this issue in this way.
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
Fort Collins Utilities Compared with Inflation
(Typical Residential Customer with Electric, Metered Water, Winter
Quarter Wastewater, and Stormwater)
1985 1990 1995
Total Utility Bill
2000 2001 Proposed
+Inflation 2002
Collins customers. Mike Smith, Utilities Director, stated that this information
available for electric customers but that not all customers are metered for water use.
that there has been growth in electric usage because of air conditioning.
Council
member
Hamric
k
requeste
d further
informat
ion prior
t o
Second
Reading
about
t h e
average
for Fort
would be
He stated
Councilmember Tharp noted that a 6% increase is proposed for 2002 and another 6% increase is
proposed for 2003 to cover debt service although the Water Board minutes indicate that the
projected revenue exceeds the debt service requirement. She asked for clarification regarding
whether it is required to raise the water rate to cover debt service. City Manager Fischbach
suggested that staff prepare an answer to this question prior to Second Reading. He noted that
revenue bonds require coverage factors of 1.4%.
242
November 6, 2001
•Councilmember Tharp expressed a concern with steep monthly billing increases. She stated that
she would like to see the City do something to control costs over the next few years.
Councilmember Tharp expressed a concern regarding the level of increase for primary services
that will add to the taxpayer's burden. Agee stated that the intent of meeting the revenue
coverage is to meet and exceed the coverage because some pledged revenue is plant investment
fees. He stated that the increase would not be requested if it was not needed.
Mayor Martinez asked if fees can exceed the costs to the City to provide services. City Attorney
Roy stated that fees can not exceed costs.
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt
Ordinance No. 192, 2001 on First Reading.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would not support the motion because of the implication
for the increases in fees for utility bills for the average citizen.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Martinez,
Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Tharp.
THE MOTION CARRIED
• Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Ordinance No. 193, 2001 on First Reading and to adopt Ordinance No. 194, 2001 on First
Reading.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
Ordinance No. 197, 2001
Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating
to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2002
and Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years Beginning
January 1, 2002, and Ending December 31, 2003, and
Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2002 Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
0 243
November 6, 2001
"Financial Impact
This Ordinance represents the annual appropriation for fiscal year 2002, and adopts the total
City Budget for fiscal year 2002 at $439,139,184 and for fiscal year 2003 at $444, 933, 617. This
Ordinance also sets the City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991, for fiscal year 2002.
Executive Summary
There have been three study sessions involving discussion of the 2002-2003 budget for the City
of Fort Collins. In addition, two public hearings were held along with input from the boards and
commissions of the City to aid in the development of the budget. From City Council direction
and the input from the public and boards and commissions, the City of Fort Collins 2002-2003
Biennial Budget was developed and is now presented to City Council for consideration and
adoption and to appropriate the necessary monies to fund the budget for fiscal year 2002. The
Second Reading of this ordinance is scheduled for November 20, 2001.
The net City budget, which excludes internal transfers between funds is $293,215,561 for 2002
and $293, 078, 557 for 2003. The net City budget is allocated to:
2002 2003
Operations $249,243,771 $250,632,623
Debt Service $ 6,143, 736 $ 4,626,459
Capital $ 37,828,054 $ 37,797,475
This ordinance also sets the 2002 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.
BACKGROUND:
The development of the 2002-2003 budget began in March of this year. Input for development of
the budget was received from two official public hearings, as well as through other citizen
participation, and from the City's boards and commissions. Three budget study sessions were
held. Acknowledging the input of the public and the boards and commissions, Council directed
that the following service additions be included in the 2002-2003 budgetfor the City.
2002
Onizoin One-time On oin
Primary Services:
1. New Office Building O&M
$114, 000
2, Major Facilities Maintenance
$200,000 $343,000 $200,000
3. Utility Cost Increase
$120,165 $20,700
4. Development Review (a)
$300, 000
5. B&ZAdminAide
$57,504 $26,700
244
2003
One-time
$215,000
$32,000
$300.000
•
November 6, 2001
6.
Plans Analyst
$94,874
$68,174
7.
Affordable Housing Production
$222,047
$272,474
8.
Affordable Housing Land Bank
$500, 000
$500, 000
9.
City Plan Update
$300,000
10.
Downtown Strategic Plan
$100, 000
11.
Parks Maintenance
$92,600
$43,600
$640,900
5437,800
12.
Second Sheet oflceO&M
$254,590
$57,060
13.
Police Staffing
$648,379
$267,088
$666,014
$273,418
14.
Police Operations
$150,000
15.
Communications Center (Police)
$100,000
16.
New Police Bldg Set -aside
$320, 000
$320, 000
17.
Pavement Management
$300,000
$1,701,866
$300,000
$1,821,370
18.
Storm Clean-up Payback
$150,000
$150,000
19.
Graffiti Reporting
$13,000
20
Transportation Master Plan Update
$325,000
Total Primary Services
$2,117,530
$4,372,293
52,674,678
$3,854,822
Secondary Services:
21. Library Special Services
22. July 4th Celebration
23. Soft Gold Park Development
24. Human Rights Coordinator
25. Transit DAR/ Route 9 Expansion
Total Secondary Services
Support Services:
26.
Rebate Program
27.
Contractual Sales Tax Rep.
28.
Recruitment Ad Budget
29.
Real Estate Services
30.
IT Basic Infrastructure
31.
E-Commerce Infrastructure
32.
GIS Strategic Plan
33.
Communication Programs
34.
Cable Programming
35.
Special November Elections
36.
Community Liaison Coord.
37.
City Council Expenses
38.
Regular Municipal Election
39.
Humane Society
40.
Island Grove Services
41.
Human Services Contract (b)
Total Support Services
Total Addidans/Enhancements
$49, 543 $11, 700
$30,000
$200,000
$57, 798 $57, 798
$160,000 $160,000
$79,543 $440,498 $0 $217,798
$45, 000
$30,000
$45, 000
$50,000
$20,000 $82,243
$10,000 $25,000
$92, 500
$45,350
$50,000
$10,000
$22, 474
$50,000
$50,000
$20,000 $92,208
$92, 500
$180,000
$10,760
$11,190
51,400
$1,500
$14,791
$15,383
$274, 775 $329, 743
$48, 073 $414, 708
$2,471,848 $5,142,534 $2,722,751 $9,629,862
0 245
November 6, 2001
Resources Available
$2,475,974
$2,722,751
$9,676,552
Net Available
$4,126
$0
$46,690
NOTE:
(a) None of the monies recommended will be spent until a more definitive plan is prepared by the
City Manager and review with City Council.
(b) This is a 4% increase similar to other Contract Agencies 439 and #40). This item was
overlooked on the original recommended service enhancement list.
2002 and 2003 Budget Adjustment
There has been interest from both the public and Council to advance the schedule of the Building
Community Choices (BCC) North College Corridor project. As originally scheduled, the project
would be scheduled for construction in 2005. Cash flow over the 0.25 cent BCC tax projections
allows the City the opportunity to accelerate the North College project schedule for construction
to begin in 2003. This adjustment does not affect the schedule for other projects within the BCC
Streets and Transportation package nor does the adjustment affect the projected balance at the
completion of the voter approved BCC package.
To accomplish the advanced schedule for the North College project, the budget for 2002 (BCC
Streets and Transportation package in the Capital Projects Fund) and the appropriation to fund
fiscal year 2002 has been increased by $238, 447 for design and right-of-way costs. In addition,
$2,016,854 has been added to the 2003 budget. These adjustments have been made to the
Ordinance presented to Council in this agenda item for adoption.
2003 Budget Exception Process
Council has discussed a number of service enhancements during this budget process. These
items will be put on a `priority" list to be considered during the 2003 budget exception process.
These items are (not in priority order):
1. Humane Society (what changes are necessary)
2. Transit services (such as Southside Shuttle/Harmony Corridor route)
3. Library services (Youth Services Librarian at the Harmony Library)
4. Land Banking Monies (do we continue to fund after the `performance audit" is completed?)
5. Community Separators Program (what will be needed after the studies are completed?)
November 6, 2001
• 6. Development Review Center (what will be the needs be for a center? Will additional fees
help offset the increased costs?)
Staff will continue to monitor revenue collection throughout 2001 as well as analyzing revenue
projections for the years 2002 and 2003. Any revision of revenue projections (whether up or
down) will be included as part of the 2003 exception process. "
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Ordinance No. 197, 2001 on First Reading.
Councilmember Bertschy stated that Council has received comments and correspondence from
the public regarding the implications of the economic downturn. He noted that a memo has been
received from the City Manager regarding the approximately $5 million in reserves, and he
questioned whether this is enough. City Manager Fischbach stated that his memo indicated that
staff is pleased with the results of the September sales tax collections because it had been
anticipated that sales tax revenue would be hit hard because of the September I 1 attacks and
their aftermath. He stated that the final figures indicate that the total sales tax collections were
down 1.74% compared to a year ago. He stated that this is a decrease of $83,000 for the month.
He stated that use tax collections were up 15.2% compared to a year ago, that the return use tax
collections were up nearly 43%, car tax was up 14%, and the audit program produced $300,000
•this month. He stated that year to date sales tax collections are up 6.56% over the same period of
a year ago, use tax collections are up 33.7% over last year, and that two large manufacturing
expansion payments have been received. He stated that total collections for the year are up
11.26% or $6.1 million higher than last year. He stated that there is reason for caution. He
stated that if the City's collections are zero percent growth for the next two months that final
collections will be about $71.4 million, which would be higher than the budget projection. He
stated that the City's strengths include the Wal-Mart expansion, Colorado State University's
record enrollment, the expansion along the Harmony Corridor, a successful year for sales and
use tax collections and the sales tax audit program, new jobs in the Colorado economy, and the
continuing creation of small companies. He stated that staff will monitor the City's weaknesses,
including economic problems and layoffs in the manufacturing sector, the fact that building
permits may be up only because of the two large expansions, and the possibility that it will be
difficult to sustain the audit program at this year's level. He stated that staff is cautiously
optimistic. He stated that there is a financial uncertainty fund that is required by the City's
financial policies to be at 3.5% of the General Fund and that it is currently at 5.7%. He stated
that this is intended to cushion the City against any economic downturn and to provide time to
adjust expenditures to meet specific situations. He stated that staff is also developing a plan to
deal with the economic situation should it worsen more than anticipated. He stated that the City
will continue to monitor all economic indicators, which at this time point up.
0 247
November 6, 2001
Councilmember Kastein suggested that the City Manager provide more information to the
Council Finance Committee regarding the economic indicators being monitored and the plan that
would address a worsening economic situation.
Councilmember Bertschy requested additional information prior to Second Reading and noted
that he was considering a motion to increase the contingency fund to provide an additional
cushion. He asked for information regarding the impacts of such a motion as well as reasons for
and reasons against such an action. He expressed a concern regarding public perceptions about
the economic downturn.
Councilmember Tharp expressed concerns regarding the level of City spending and stated that
this is not a conservative budget. She stated that the budget is an 8.8% increase, which is double
the rate of inflation and expressed a concern regarding employee increases. She asked how this
escalating level of spending can be justified and asked if Council should not look at the excess
reserve as a savings account to be used for major projects such as roads to reduce the amount of
new tax money needed for roads. She questioned whether the Council is getting good revenue
projections when the City continues to have excess revenues. She noted that a mill levy increase
is being adopted and that because of the increased assessed valuation of property more tax
money will be brought into the City. She asked if Council should consider a major policy
decision as to how the additional money is spent rather than simply adding it to the General
Fund. She stated that this money could be set aside instead for costly roads. She stated that she
has asked many questions during the budget process and the only result has been minor tinkering
with the budget. She stated that the basic direction of City spending has not been changed. She
expressed a concern that some budget questions are addressed in a public forum and that others
are answered in e-mail discussions away from the public forum. She stated that she has asked a
number of questions regarding the police budget because it showed an increase of 17.6% and the
communications and technology budget that showed an increase of 28%. She stated that both
items have reasonable explanations. She stated that her concern is how the City will measure the
results of an increase of $3 million to the police base budget and an additional $840,000 in
enhancements over the next two years. She expressed a concern that there is no data to show the
results of adding to the police budget last year. She spoke regarding the citizen input regarding
the necessity of having an adequate transit system and stated that funds have not been included
for proper staffing for environmental compliance, pollution control or energy conservation. She
stated that she is not in favor of increasing Council's expense account. She noted that there is
nothing in the budget to address the Buckingham -Alta Vista curb sidewalk issue or the need for a
children's librarian at the Harmony branch. She stated that there is still a $300,000 line item for
the development review process although more than one Councilmember objected to this. She
noted that there is also an expensive price tag for the update of the transportation plan. She
stated that because of all of these concerns she would not be voting in favor of the budget. She
stated that in the next budget cycle she would be looking for staff to present a tighter budget; a
clearer explanation of revenue sources, increased fees and capital projects; and more response to
248
November 6, 2001
•Council direction. She stated that this budget does not reflect a close watch on tax spending and
does not reflect her priorities.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he supported much of Councilmember Tharp's comments.
He stated that he would like to see the impact of having additional funding go into reserves. He
stated that he does not support funding for a development review center, that he would like to see
a focus on pollution prevention, that he would like more information regarding the pilot process
that was done in connection with the Natural Resources request for another planner to deal with
land use standard compliance and development regulation adjacent to natural areas, that he has
concerns regarding the separator program and the fact that not all of the money that was
appropriated for the Timnath-Windsor separator study was expended for the study, that there was
money appropriated for the Fort Collins -Wellington separator and no money has been spent from
the appropriated funds, and that he would like figures on what it would cost to implement the
separators. He stated that he has additional questions and would express those in an e-mail at a
later time.
Councilmember Kastein stated that he is comfortable with the proposed budget even though he
had many questions throughout the budget review process. He noted that questions are asked of
staff to resolve issues and that if further direction is sought that the issue must be brought back to
Council. He stated that such issues should be resolved long before the budget is in front of
Council for approval. He stated that consensus needs to be built on budget issues and that he felt
isthat there is consensus on the budget because issues have been discussed throughout the process.
He stated as an example that there was discomfort on Council with the development review
center and that the consensus was to put the money into the budget for that item and that the City
Manager would come back to Council with information regarding how the money would be used
when it was time for appropriation. He stated that no dissension was indicated when that
solution was discussed at the Study Session.
Councilmember Wanner agreed with Councilmember Kastein's statement. He stated that it is
important when Council has disagreements that budget issues are resolved in study sessions. He
stated that it is not the time to bring up new questions late in the year when there are deadlines
for adoption of the budget. He stated that these questions have been brought up during the
budget process and have appeared to be resolved. He stated that Councilmember Bertschy's
questions regarding the economic downturn are appropriate because of recent events and some
of the other questions that were asked should have been pursued more firmly and resolved
during the budget discussion sessions.
Councilmember Tharp stated that the issues she raised were brought up during the budgeting
process and that these issues were not resolved to her satisfaction. She stated that her position on
some issues does not necessarily change just because there is no support for her position from
other Councilmembers. She stated that she wants the citizens to know that she raised the issues
that remain a concern for her. She noted that she is a minority opinion at this point on these
0 249
November 6, 2001
issues and wishes to acknowledge that her position has not changed regarding some of the issues
that have been discussed.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that he would like to see the Climate -Wise funds be ongoing
rather than one-time and that he would like to see the diversion of $85,000 from the sports field
preparation project to other uses.
Councilmember Kastein asked if Councilmember Hamrick would like Council direction
regarding these issues.
Councilmember Hamrick stated that these types of ideas were items that he would like to have
seen incorporated into the budget throughout the process and that it is not always clear about
how consensus can be reached to accomplish these types of revisions.
Mayor Martinez stated that the protocol regarding line items is that the Councilmember who has
concerns regarding the budget item must obtain support from at least two other Councilmembers
for the change. He stated that revisions can not be made at the direction of a single
Councilmember and that direction to staff must come from the Council as a whole. He stated
that Council's role in the budget process is to look at the larger picture and that the role of the
City Manager is to make the budget work in accordance with Council's overall direction
regarding the level of service that should be provided.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Warmer and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Tharp.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Adjournment
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adjourn to
November 13, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. to conduct the annual evaluations of the City Attorney, City
Manager and Municipal Judge. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
250
• The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•
Mayor x
251
November 6, 2001